From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-04 10:31:12
My comments below apply to the whole discussion between Rene and David.
I'm not sure that crawling up, locating Jamrules and doing something with it
is either very needed, or even good to have.
First, its only object is to allow building without extra step of setting
BOOST_BUILD_PATH. Looks to me that a simple script/program can take care of
this (and seems like Rene has such script already). Crawling up appears to be
an overly smart solution.
Second, including Jamrules before loading boost build files might be a
problem. If Jamrules is to tell the location of boost-build system, what rule
will be used for that and where will it be defined?
> Maybe just supporting "Jamfile.jam" as an alternate spelling would be enough
> to provide the convenience without complicating the implementation all that
How can this be done? Elements of SEARCH can be only directories, not files,
so I don't know how two alternative spellings can be specified.
> Maybe we should just dispense with "Jamfile" and go with "project.jam"
> (taking the place of Jamfile) and "project-config.jam" (taking the place of
I don't like the idea: "Jamfile" is good for me...
"Jamrules" is not so good name, however. But "project-config.jam" isn't good
either -- it suggests only simple configuration switched as content, while
it's okay to have rather elaborate rules in it. For me the best name is
"Jamglobals" (or "Jamglobal")
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk