From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 02:59:23
On Monday 07 March 2005 18:51, Rene Rivera wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>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.
> > So this basically amounts to, "I don't like the name 'Jamfile.v2' and
> > it shouldn't end up being the official name of v2 Jamfiles." I
> > actually agree with you on that.
> True, I don't like the Jamfile.v2 name :-) But I always thought it was a
> temporary name Volodya came up with while we figured out the eventual name.
Sorry to be stubborn, but I don't understand how Jamfile.v2 vs. build.jam vs.
whatever is going to help us. Now, top-level build file is called Jamroot and
all the rest are called Jamfile.v2. The name Jamfile.v2 is configurable, one
change change it any time.
The biggest task now is to compare test results for V1 and 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