Re: [jamboost] Re: boost jam and minGW: another brief note

From: ANDREW MARLOW, BLOOMBERG/ LONDON OF (amarlow1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-07 08:32:24

DA> From: David Abrahams <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
DA> To: ANDREW MARLOW, BLOOMBERG/ LONDON OF
DA> Subject: [jamboost] Re: boost jam and minGW: another brief note
DA> Date: 06/07/2005 14:27:08
DA> 
DA> "ANDREW MARLOW, BLOOMBERG/ LONDON OF" <amarlow1_at_[hidden]> writes:
DA> > I forgot to mention, I am having problems with
DA> > boost jam for minGW only because I am trying to
DA> > use jam from a minGW shell. One of the advantages
DA> > of using minGW over cygwin is that minGW produces
DA> > standalone executables that can be run in a DOS shell.
DA> > When boost jam for minGW is run from a DOS shell
DA> > everything is fine. Maybe that it why no-one else
DA> > seems to have found the problems I have found.
DA> 
DA> So far we haven't ever promised to support shells other than real
DA> Unix, Cygwin, and the standard NT command prompt.

Does this mean if I submitted some fixes
they would be rejected?

Plus, the original perforce jam DOES work from an
msys prompt. So boost jam on minGW does seem like
a step backwards in comparision. That is not meant
as an insult to boost jam, indeed I want boost jam
on minGW because it fixes some other problems that
perforce jam has, plus boost jam is being actively
developed whilst perforce jam is not.

DA> 
DA> -- 
DA> Dave Abrahams