Re: [jamboost] Re: Solaris jam build

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-07 14:18:33

On 2002-05-07 at 01:50 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> I think we should put it back. I don't mind having mutliple versions of
>Jam
>> installed (I have 5 so far) but users won't know this and they might
>still
>> wan't to compile their older programs that might be using the older Boost
>> versions.
>
>Hmph. OK. I think there's a small issue of all the bits being used up in
>some flags somewhere...
>Rene, I assume you're out of time to look at it (?)

No that much time :-( Also in a few hours I'll be in the middle of hardware
changes and my email will go away for a few hours.

>> After all you just spent a considerable amount of time changing the load
>> behaviour to be backward compatible. Just to have it thwarted by the
>missing
>> FAIL_EXPECTED ;-)
>
>Actually, there's still an issue. I think I'd need to restore
>tools/build/boost-build.jam in order for the new Jam executable to work
>with an older version of Boost.Build.

You sure? After all won't that be the older version if you are building
against an older Boost?

Or are your talking about building an older Boost with newer Boost.Jam and
Boost.Build?

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]