From: Administrator (administrator_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-15 18:52:10
Thanks for replying. I will look at everything you suggested over the
weekend, and hopefully Monday will be a great start.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rene Rivera [mailto:grafik666_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:50 PM
> To: jamboost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [jamboost] Common Lib Subdir
> [2003-08-15] Administrator wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I was wondering what was the status of utilizing a common
> >subdir to place compiled libraries into was, and what, if
> anything, needs
> >be done in order to help out.
> Last we left the relevant conversation at...
> [2003-08-05] Beman Dawes wrote:
> >At 02:01 AM 8/5/2003, Rene Rivera wrote:
> > >>* We need to test this build process on a daily basis. I
> don't know
> > >>if that means adding to the current regression tests or adding a
> > >>separate test framework.
> > >
> > >IMO adding a separate framework is easier than trying to
> integrate to the
> > >current one. We would not want to break the regression
> testing, given
> > >it's working nicely. And testing the build is considerably easier.
> > >
> > >Initially just making a build script, ala
> > >that automates the fetch/build/process. And like the
> regression parse the
> > >log for errors. etc.
> > >
> > >Is process_jam_log flexible enough to parse the output of
> a regular
> > >I could write a quick Perl script, otherwise.
> >I'd rather wait a bit until the requirements become clearer.
> The point for
> >now is to just start thinking about the idea that not only must this
> >build/install procedure work, but we also need to test
> regularly to make
> >sure it stays working.
> ...So I'd say the best way you can help is by taking a look
> at what the
> proposed build+install procedure does and giving feedback. In
> addition to
> the current CVS, which you already have, check out the
> boost-root/Jamfile on
> the build_for_distribution branch...
> cvs co -r build_for_distribution boost/Jamfile
> It tries to mimic configure type options, which you can get help on by
> cd boost-root
> bjam --help
> One immediate feedback question I have for you is wether it's
> more important
> to build+install, as autoconf/configure/make does, or just
> build, and let
> the user and/or package builders install?
> >For my own sake, I pulled down the latest CVS sources, and
> patched the
> >relevant Jamfiles in order to have this functionality. If anyone is
> >interested, I can post the patchfile to this list.
> I looked at the patches you posted on the Boost.Users list,
> but feel free to
> post them here for those others that may be interested.
> The one comment I have about your patches is that the
> approach you took is
> unlikely to win favor with the Boost library authors. This is
> because they
> would have to maintain the stage rules themselves. Most
> authors tend to want
> less things to worry about, rather than more ;-)
> That said.. having something like an "install" rule for
> library authors to
> specify what they want installed could be a workable and prefered
> -- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
> -- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
> -- 102708583 (at) icq
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
> US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
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