Re: [jamboost] Build request interface

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-11 15:15:55

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] Build request interface

> On 2002-06-11 at 04:58 PM, ghost_at_[hidden] (Vladimir Prus) wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi,
> >it was quiet here for a while, but now I think it's better to continue
with
> >development.
>
> I also think it's time to get back to this :-)

Me too. I'll try to devote as much attention as possible; I'm a bit swamped
right now, though.

> >I'm looking at issue 552870: Complete initialization behaviour now
>
>(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=552870&group_id=7586&atid
=445591)
> >and wondering what to do about "--toolset" and "--build". Would we like
> both
> >options to be present, or to retain only latter, so that the user could
> >simply type
> >
> > bjam --build="gcc borland release debug"
> >
> >What do you think?

I think lots of different interfaces have been discussed. Someone asked at
one point why he could just type "bjam gcc" and have it build with gcc.
Maybe --build="..." and --toolset="..." are just distractions; Maybe we can
distinguish all of these things from target names, so users could write:

bjam gcc borland release debug my_target your_target <inlining>off

Then "my_target" would actually be a way to spell the "my_target" value of
the implicit feature <target>.

> What set of builds will that produce?
>
> gcc/release + gcc/debug + borland/release + borland/debug ?

Yep.

> If the case is we just multiply... Do we want to allow for a lesser set
of
> builds? Like gcc/release + borland/debug?

bjam gcc/release borland/debug

see build-request.jam.

-Dave