From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-05 07:58:22
Rene Rivera wrote:
> I'm done with the first pass at the new build scripts for b/jam. They are:
> * build.bat; Bootstrap build on Windows command.com shell. Currently
> - Detection of: Borland(BCC5) tools - tested; CodeWarrior 8 tools -
> tested; MSVC in the three variants of C++/98, Studio, and .NET (untested)
> - Bootstraps both jam and mkjambase (if needed). Doesn't bootstrap the
> grammar because of the generally missing "yyacc" script on Windows.
I think that "Could not find a suitable toolset" message may
include the list of all toolsets that can be given as argument.
Also, I see that paths for toolsets are hardcoded. Can we do better?
Will building work if I have "bcc32" in path, but it's installed in nonstandard
location. (Well I can check this at home, but later).
> The scripts are targeted mostly at enduser building, and as such us
> developers have to do the extra typing. Users just do either "./build.sh" or
How do I build debug version of bjam?
> The one thing I could not keep compatible in the still present Jamfile was
> the RPM building. This is because the command to build b/jam is embedded in
> the boost-jam.spec. So to build RPMs you must use these new scripts. If we
> can't live with this I can try and make changes to "Jamfile" to get that
There's no point in having two build mechanism, I think. When new one
is finished, we'll remove the old one.
> So now we just need to implement more bootstrap tool detection code ;-) One
> other thing should we replace the now very outdated building instructions
> (INSTALL,README,RELNOTES) with more text files or a single Boost looking
> HTML page?
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