Re: [jamboost] Building b/jam...

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-06 17:57:09

[2002-11-06] David Abrahams wrote:

>
>Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>>> 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 ".\build.bat".
>>>
>>>OK. What's the extra typing look like?
>>
>> Developers would have to use bjam for building, and the command would be
>> like:
>>
>> ./bin.linuxx86/bjam -f build.jam -sBOOST_JAM_TOOLSET=gcc [ "dist",
>> options, whatever else we think of ]
>
>The thing I worry about there is that bjam won't be able to replace
>itself.

You mean the binary? That's not a problem... either another bjam (like the
previous version) can be used or what I think I should have mention as the
example instead:

./bootstrap.gcc/jam0 -f build.jam -sBOOST_JAM_TOOLSET=gcc ...
(Which is what the build.sh and build.bat call)

>And why would developers _have_ to use anything different from normal
>users?

This is the difference you mentioned earlier... users do a build-to-install,
while developers do a build-to-develop. The bootstrap scripts: build.sh, and
build.bat take care of the build-to-install, whereas direct use of build.jam
does the build-to-develop.

-- Or am I misunderstanding your question?

>>>> 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 working.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I understand what the consequences of this are.
>>
>> Simple... we can't use the current Jamfile to build the RPMs. To allow
that
>> I'd have to make changes to build.jam, Jamfile, and boost-jam.spec.
>
>Yes, but do we want to use the current Jamfile to build RPMs? I don't
>know how to evaluate that.

I don't think so, and Vladimir already said he doesn't think so also. So
that's two votes for not bothering with that particular compatability issue.
And I guess I won't bother with doing those changes... after all many other
changes are more important ;-)

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