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

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-12 13:19:16

Peter Foley wrote:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>>Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>>I think it would be better to ship BB as a separate package 
>>
>>It is being shipped also as a separate package.
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion I think this is not a true statement!!!
> 
> Note I am basing this on the fact that the boost.build download on
> sourceforge is from October 29, 2004.

I use the latest snapshot.

> What I think Andrey is asking for is the ability to download a package
> (installer) and that is all you need to use Bjam.

I'm pretty happy with current tarball packaging. But of course an 
installer would be better.

> Currently to use bjam you need to either download a version of boost (1.32,
> 1.33 or CVS) and then compile a the version of bjam sources that you have.
> Or download the already compiled version of bjam, _plus_ download a version
> of the boost sources.

You can just download Boost.Build separately and then compile the 
version of bjam sources that you have just by running build.bat. It 
works straightforward without any setup in my case.

> The reason you need the boost sources (in addition to the bjam.exe) is for
> the %boost_root%/tools/build/[v1 || v2] directories. Without the additional
> files in these directories you cannot use bjam. I am guessing that a number
> of these files will have bugs that have been fixed more recently.

I think you have missed http://boost.org/boost-build2 completely.

> When I think of a package (or installer) it suggests to me that if I
> download and install this package I have the capability to use the installed
> software.

You can use standalone bjam out of the box, just like FTJam and Perforce 
Jam.

>>>or at least not inside BOOST_ROOT.
>>
>>I don't see why that would be better. At any rate, it seems like a
>>very unimportant change to make.
> 
> 
> This really depends on what your (and the other developers) objective of
> bjam is.
> 
> I know that technically bjam is the sharp end of the Boost.Build process,
> but if you want other people to start using bjam as a MAKE (or insert other
> build system) replacement I think it is important to make it easier to
> install bjam without needing to install the latest boost source.

This is close to what I meant.

I don't like to have 2 versions of BB: one that I use in my projects, 
and one inside Boost source tree. So I'd like to have boost-build 
installed separately side-by-side when I install Boost. Or even I'd like 
to have to install Boost.Build separately in order to build boost.

Andrey