From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-04 12:33:51
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> 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
> 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
> this (and seems like Rene has such script already). Crawling up appears to
> an overly smart solution.
To me it seems relatively simple, and would eliminate a whole level of
complication for users. Just look at the amount of traffic that has been
generated by the question of how to get Jam installation right, and what
environment variables need to be set. While I appreciate all the work people
have done on installers, there are still platforms for which people need to
compile Jam themselves.
> Second, including Jamrules before loading boost build files might be a
> problem. If Jamrules is to tell the location of boost-build system, what
> will be used for that and where will it be defined?
That rule can be in the Jambase.
> David wrote:
> > Maybe we should just dispense with "Jamfile" and go with "project.jam"
> > (taking the place of Jamfile) and "project-config.jam" (taking the place
> > Jamrules).
> I don't like the idea: "Jamfile" is good for me...
> "Jamrules" is not so good name, however. But "project-config.jam" isn't
> 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")
Rene is arguing for filenames with extensions. His reasons are sound, it
seems to me.
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