From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-28 16:41:50
Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> The one thing you're missing that makes bjam a lot more complex
>> than autoconf is that you have to specify all your options for
>> every invocation of bjam, where as once you configure a particular
>> build root with an autoconf setup, all that information is baked
>> into the generated Makefiles. After I configure there's no
>> requirement to have any particular environment variables set or
>> arguments passed to make.
> Correct.. And I think that's the point you originally wanted to
> make. But that's a much better way of making it ;-)
> So from your point of view, and obviously others, it would be good
> to have a "bjam [options..] configure" that would create a default
> set of options for you.
That's sort of what user-config.jam and site-config.jam are. I'm not
sure that passing options to bjam just so it can write them into such
a file is superior to editing the file directly.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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