From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-30 00:06:36
Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> [2002-10-29] David Abrahams wrote:
> >Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> prefered compiler in Win32... CodeWarrior. So I decided to add support
> >> that, but after seeing all the various build scripts and instructions in
> >> jam_src I got frustrated at trying to change the Jambase to support it.
> So I
> >> decided to write a new set of scripts to compile jam(bjam) instead.
> >I'm extremely excited about this effort! I definitely think we should
> >do something like this.
> >I'm also traveling at the moment and
> >preoccupied with many obligations and other things. However, I intend
> >to focus on Boost install/build issues starting 11/2. If you feel you
> >haven't got enough feedback by that time, please raise the issue
> Will do. I'm going bird watching, an extremely strage thing for me to do,
> over the weekend so I won't get back to this till the 4th.
> >Have you considered using the Jam extensions for examining the
> >windows registry (one of the other Perforce users did it) to locate
> >the compiler to build bjam with?
> No, had completely forgotten about that... but unfortunaly I don't think it
> helps in this case :-( As the guessing for the compiler is done outside of
> Jam, in the build.sh/bat. After all "b/jam" isn't built yet ;-) --
> bootstrapping is always a pain.
Oh, of course ;-)
Well, can your work be checked in without breaking anything? I am
thinking about making Boost 1.29.1 an "officially installable and
testable" release (whatever that means). Would you recommend switching
to your new stuff for 1.29.1, or would that be premature?
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
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