From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-05 23:44:14
David Abrahams wrote:
> Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>1. Use "build.jam" as the project files, instead of Jamfile(.v2). The
>>name is short, direct to the point, and relates closely to Boost.Build.
>>2. Change the Jam load behavior so that if Jam is run as "b2jam" it
>>invokes BBv2, instead of "--v2".
> I rather like "build.jam"... but that said, how will these things help
> the transition?
Well, the build.jam change would give us a permanent target to move the
Boost building to. It's much easier to tell people to start using
build.jam, and that Jamfile is deprecated. Instead of forcing an
immediate cut over.
Or more plainly.. We need to decide on something. And I think having the
ability for BBv1 and BBv2 work at the same time is helpful as it
currently is, but without the temporary Jamfile.v2 files.
The only reason I though the b2jam change might be helpful was to make
sure that the BBv2 loading works outside of the
boost-root/boost-build.jam handling. But looking at it again it doesn't
seem like much of a gain from the pain of having another executable :-)
>>Was there a resolution re: the "project-root.jam" file?
> I was unable to convince anyone of its evilness. :(
FWIW, you convinced me it was superfluous at least. And having less
files to set up is always better.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
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