Re: [jamboost] Re: boost-build.jam precedence over $BOOST_BUILD_PATH

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-23 08:52:41

Samuel Krempp wrote:

> >> couldn't bjam --version report it ?
> >> or is there already a switch do do that ?
> >
> > There's no switch yet. I think that since printing root is for
> > troubleshooting, we should not include it to --version output.
>
> in case there are several Boost.Build directory trees, the one in use is
> part of the "version" in some way, I think users would find it normal to
> see something like :
>
> % bjam --version
> Boost.Build V2 (Milestone 9.1) found from /home/sam/progs/boost-build.jam
> at /home/sam/Boost/tools/build/v2
> Boost.Jam 03.01.09
>
> or a more compact :
>
> % bjam --version
> Boost.Build V2 (Milestone 9.1) at /home/sam/Boost/tools/build/v2
> Boost.Jam 03.01.09

I though about this too.. but if directory name is too long the nice --version 
output becomes cluttered.

> > There's --debug-configuration switch, which so far interpreted by
> > msvc.jam only and tell where it find compiler.
> >
> > Maybe, the same switch can cause Boost.Build to print where it found
> > boost-build.jam and directory from where Boost.Build is loaded? What do
> > you think?
>
> yeah that could do the job too. but maybe needs more modification than
> changing --version, no ?

Almost the same.

> it's true that bjam --version maybe shouldn't print debug details (like
> saying whether the Boost.Build root was found from variable or
> boost-build.jam (nd then which), so a debug switch would have more freedom
> in its output.

Yea, it can be as verbose at it likes. Ok, implemented the following:

bash-2.05b$ bash-2.05b$ /tmp/bjam --debug-configuration
notice: found boost-build.jam 
at /home/ghost/Work/boost/tools/build/v2/example/boost-build.jam
notice: loading Boost.Build from /home/ghost/Work/boost/tools/build/v2/kernel

Gonna commit now.

- Volodya