Re: [jamboost] Build request interface

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-14 10:29:22

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>

> That sounds nice... but if we are going the "configure" like route we
might
> as well map to it as closely as possible. Which means that it would be:
>
> "bjam gcc --enable-inlining", or "bjam gcc --enable-inlining=yes"
> and
> "bjam gcc --disable-inlining", or "bjam gcc --enable-inlining=no"
>
> The "with" type options are used for package options. For us that could
> enable us to do:
>
> bjam gcc --with-stlport

In that case, I don't think I want to go the "configure-like route". To the
inexperienced user, these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary and cause the
options to be somewhat verbose. I'd rather go with something that maps
directly to our feature-space:

--c++-stdlib=stlport --inlining=on --toolset=gcc

or, using implicit features:

stlport --inlining=on gcc