From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-13 01:40:09
Rene Rivera wrote:
> [2003-05-13] Vladimir Prus wrote:
> >Ali Azarbayejani wrote:
> >I buy this argument. Not partial about new name of project-root.jam, but
> >Jamfile is nice, so probably Jamroot is ok.
> Yes, thanks for making it clear now :-)
> I've been thinking about this for a while and here's what seems most
> reasonable to me.
> 1. Yes, the project-root.jam name seems unintuitive now. I'm the one who
> suggested it initially and in my projects it makes sense because I name my
> "Jamfile"s "project.jam". In keeping with the new naming I would suggest we
> instead use the Jamroot idea from Ali. Specifically that we look for
> "[Jj]amroot" or "[Jj]amroot.jam". And correspondingly with jamfiles we have
> a JAMROOT global to set the match pattern.
> 2. That we modify the load sequence to allow not having a Jamroot file...
> a. We do the regular search for the Jamroot file, if found great.
> b. If not found we create a "fake" project-root where the Jamfile is
> located, that is the current dir. Along with this we might want to issue a
> warning indicating the lack of a formal Jamroot file.
I wonder if there's a danger here. Say there's some wayward Jamroot, which is
not related to the project we're building?
> This only requires some minor changes to the project-root class to
> support a no-load creation/initialization. I'm sure there qould be changes
> elsewhere, like in project.jam, but not sure what those are.
The changes will be truly minor, and that's a big advantage of your proposal.
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