Re: [jamboost] boost-build.jam documentation issues

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-12 04:11:51

On Friday 12 August 2005 02:13, Andrey Melnikov wrote:

> >>Do we have multiple branches in CVS?
> >
> > We have a 1.33 release branch, which you should probably not touch at
> > this point. You can make your own branch if you want to.
>
> What are the reasons to have a private branch? 

None that I see. 

> The only reason I see now 
> is that someone will be able to review my changes before integrating
> them branch into the main branch.
>
> Do we need this kind of isolation between the developers? Do we use it now?

No, the only branch we have is for Python port, to avoid scaring ordinary 
users ;-)

> >>I meant into bbv2 developer/extender reference. Not into user
> >>reference. Now it's outside of bb documentation tree.
> >
> > I know what you meant.
>
> Do you mean that you we not going to merge jam_src documentation even
> into bbv2 developer/extender reference?

*I* eventually would like to have it merged. 

> >>Do we want to cancel Jam language and rewrite BB in Python?
> >
> > Probably, eventually. First, we are going to rewrite all of the BBv2
> > guts in Python. You can build bjam --with-python so that it embeds a
> > Python interpreter. That allows the jam language to remain for
> > Jamfiles while we rewrite the internal logic.
>
> Do you mean that you are going to rewrite the BB core in Python, while
> users will still use Jam? Do you want users to start writin Jamfiles in
> Python one day?

I think this is in mailing list archives. "One day" this might be good, or 
not. We don't have any decision on that, but initially, the port will use 
*unchanged* syntax for Jamfile.

> >>2) Does all these files point to the right place?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >>Not only boost-build in the top directory is misleading.
> >
> > What's misleading about it?
>
> That it points to "kernel". I tried to use example\boost-build.jam
> (which points to kernel/ too) as a template for my own boost-build.jam
> and ended with having kernel there.
>
> I think it should be documented that it's not a good idea to point to
> kernel despite it works.

Yes, it's better to require pointing to V2 root, and forbidding poiting to 
"kernel". IIRC, some time ago V1 and V2 had the same root, so "kernel" suffix 
was necessary. Or maybe there was some other reason ;-)

> >>Should we move other such useless files to a new subfolder?
> >
> > What are you assuming is useless?
>
> boost-build.jam bootstrap.jam build-system.jam generators_prototype.py
> hacking.txt nightly.sh release_procedure.txt roll.sh
>
> End users don't need these files. So moving them deeper will make the
> structure clearer.

The first three are really necessary with the current bootstrap mechanism. 
hacking.txt is of interest to users that might want to hack on code, so I'd 
retain it. Others can be moved. To bad we're not switched to Subversion 
yet :-((

> > Maybe my site administrator has Python-2.3 installed and I want to
> > test against a Python-2.4 installed in my personal local directory (or
> > think GCC versions if you prefer).
>
> For VC it isn't possible to have private installations. And if all
> installations are global, there is no need to have private config files.

What do you mean? I recally I've used VC install on one machine from another 
one via SMB mount. The second machine had no idea that VC was ever install, 
and the first machine was actually running Linux. Looks like "private 
installation".

- Volodya

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com
Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2