From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-29 02:32:26
On Sunday 28 November 2004 12:58, Daniel James wrote:
> gmu wrote:
> > * rule gcc.init ( version ? : command * : options * )
> > * called with: ( 3.2 g++-3.2 : : : : : : : )
> > * extra argument g++-3.2
> > /etc/site-config.jam:23: in modules.load
> > I installed bjam using 'apt-get install bjam' and I installed
> > boost-build by using dpkg-buildpackage to create the package from
> > bbv2-m10. I'm calling bjam with 'bjam --v2'
> I think your problem is with the boost build package, it installs the
> file /etc/site-config.jam. If you look at that, it includes the line:
> using gcc : 3.2 g++-3.2 ;
> The correct syntax is:
> using gcc : 3.2 : g++-3.2 ;
> But you don't really want the line at all, so you might want to comment
> it out, or even remove it completely.
> Then again, I don't think the boost build package is ready for use (or
> is it, Vladmir?).
It's not officially ready. I planned to talk to Steve about fate of
boost-build package after next milestone release.
> I don't think it currently offers any real advantage
> over just using it straight from the source so it might be best to just
> remove the package.
It would still be move convenient to
apt-get install boost-build
then doing manual unpacking.
> Vladmir, I've attached a patch for this.
> I also think the debian version numbers need to be updated.
> Or is that
> now the responsibility of Steve Robbins, as the debian maintainer? If
> so, should the debian files be removed from the boost sources?
Steve currently maintains only bjam packages. The "debian" directory for
boost-build is provided for convenience and is not yet maintained. So I'm not
sure about removing the "debian" directory yet.
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