From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-26 06:35:55
Christopher Currie wrote:
> > We've corrected a lot of that, but I think we're
> > near the end of that road. I really think in the long run we ought to
> > be thinking in terms of preserving the architecture of Boost.Build,
> > but of dumping the Jam heritage.
> Does this mean dumping the Jam syntax as well? I'm in the process of
> expending non-trivial amount of time and energy convincing my peers to
> abandon Make in favor of BJam, a process that will be considerably
> harder if I must admit that BJam is considered by its developers to be a
> dead end.
As far as I'm concerned:
1. We're not going to drop bjam syntax in Jamfile for quite some time.
2. Even if we drop it, we'll have to write conversion scripts, and preserve as
much of the current syntax as possible. I sure don't want some "Boost.Build
V3" to be incompatible with V2.
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