From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-03 17:51:01
I beg to differ. It DOES
version 1.6 of Jamfile.v2 contains the line you say it shouldn't do
I checked it against the cvs repository and it's up to date
the line was added (according to annotate)
1.3 (vladimir 23-Oct-02): build-project libs/graph/build ;
it's still in the file
bison IS in the path
it complains: bison.simple: No such file or directory
bison.simple is in the same directory as bison.exe
my command for running bjamv2 is:
bjam --v2 >bjamv2.log
this is run from the same directory that I run:
bjam -sTOOLS=vc7.1 install >bjaminstall.log
At Monday 2004-02-02 11:32, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > I still get complaints using either the latest OR the rc_1_31_0 label when
> > building boost
> > specifically, I get complaints about bison.....
> > WHY does some part of the build require bison??
>It does not.
>The only bison dependency is in the build script for bjam itself, and
>even then it shouldn't be using bison unless you have an incomplete
>checkout (missing jamgram.c or jamgram.h) AND bison is in the path.
>Otherwise, you are using the Makefile in libs/graph/src directly (not
>part of the Boost build) or you're building with BBv2, which is not
>officially supported yet. The Jamfile.v2 in the boost root should not
> build-project libs/graph/build ;
>because that Jamfile builds optional graphvis components that require
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
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