From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-25 00:45:56
On Tuesday 24 May 2005 23:33, Michael Stevens wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2005 08:18, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2005 19:57, Michael Stevens wrote:
> would be required externally.
> > > Therefore a librarys the Jamfiles would require further extension to
> > > list the exported headers. This would seem like a lot of complexity for
> > > little gain. I must admit however to feeling that the inclusion of
> > > install information into BBv2 has rather detracted from it's elligence
> > > for me. The level of support effort required to cover the multitude of
> > > installation scenarios seems to me to be disproportionate!
> > Can you clarify the above paragraph? In particular, the "elligence" word
> > is not known by http://www.m-w.com, so I can't understand the reminder
> > either. It sound like you're pointing out some problems, if that's the
> > case I'd like to understand what are they.
> David is correct, 'elegance' is the proper spelling!
> The meaning of the paragraph is not so profound however. I wrote it after
> having to look at Jamfile.v2 at the root of the Boost sources.
> I think the build process with BBv2 is very 'elegant'.
> The addition of support for installation rather obscures this. And makes
> the Jamfiles rather shocking!
Thanks for clarifying. I recall some user asked for 'stock' support for
install (bin/lib/header directories), so it might be added in future.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
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