From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-06 16:37:42
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
> >I hope you're joking. Those rules are aliases for one another.
> No, wasn't joking. I didn't know they where aliases :-\ But just
> the code, I guess they are.
> Maybe I don't wan't to deal with that change right now.
I'm working on merging the Perforce changes back into our source right
now. I'll put it on a branch so you can check it out.
> >> Which brings up another issue... Should we eventually replace the
> >> Jambase with the 2.4 Jambase?
> >We already talked about this a bit in threads starting here:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/144
> >and here:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jamboost/message/216
> >I am generally in favor of scrapping the older Jambase, since FTJam
> >proven to be a dead branch, and since I found a fair amount of
> >questionable code in it. However, there is still the issue of whether
> >not we would be losing support for building Jam executables on any
> >compilers. Do you happen to know whether Perforce 2.4 supports
> >et. al?
> Don't know at all... I don't follow the Perforce changes, other than
> you post about them.
> Maybe the thing to do is wait for the 2.4 release (as opposed to the
> and then look at that Jambase.
Maybe. No need to make extra work for ourselves.
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