Subject: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement
From: Mike Dev (mike.dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-27 18:23:33
Am I the only one who thinks this has gotten completely off-topic?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Mateusz Loskot via Boost
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 5:01 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 16:57, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:29 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 05:18, Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> > Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Indeed: While the above is a great starting point to support what I want,
> >> > > I don't want to loose the ability for BPL to be built (and tested) as part
> >> > > of the rest of Boost. I would thus prefer something that gives me the
> >> > > ability to choose the build strategy e.g. using some command-line option,
> >> > > including flag to be passed to the build (e.g., `b2 ... standalone=on`),
> >> > > rather than having to modify the (build) code.
> >> >
> >> > Scanning for Jamroot to identify the project root is fundamental to Jam (the
> >> > Perforce one). We could perhaps add something like
> >> >
> >> > b2 --jamroot=.
> >> >
> >> > that would act as if there were an empty Jamroot at . (or equivalently if
> >> > the Jamfile at . were named Jamroot.)
> >> Does it mean there could be two jamfile-s?
> >> libs/gil/Jamroot for standalone build
> >> libs/gil/Jamfile for in-Boost tree build
> >> and the latter is simply ignored in normal b2 run, ie. without --jamroot=.
> > No. Such a theoretical feature would use the existing Jamfile at the location as the
> >> I think, this would be also very helpful to apply the Jamroot trick ,
> >> recently presented to me by Steven Watanabe,
> >> to significantly speed up b2 startup procedures:
> > But, yes, it would allow for that trick.
> > In general I think the boost-root/Jamroot does way-way too much.
> > If Boost where restructure to be modular only most of that work would unnecessary.
> That sounds compelling enough to me :-) Thanks for the clarification
> Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost