From: Matt England (mengland_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-07 10:35:21
At 4/7/2006 02:03 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Is bjam build v1 and "something else" is build v2? Which one should I use?
Ok. How does:
...if at all? ie, how does V1 differ from V2...and is the "standard" stuff
V1 or V2? Is bjam exclusively V2, or are we talking about a new rev of
bjam...or something else?
I'm a bit confused.
>bjam typically builds in a minute or so.
At 4/7/2006 04:31 AM, John Maddock wrote:
>>Is this feasible? If so, can I do it without having to include *the
>>entire* source-code set (with it's enormouse number of files) or being
>>forced to use bjam?
>That's exectly what the bcp tool is for:
Yes, Volodya mentioned this earlier. Thanks all for the feedback. Looks
like quite a handy tool.
>Last time I checked, the rest of the world was using some graphical IDE on
>Windows, and had no idea about make or gnu whatsoever.
I stand corrected; yes, that's a much bigger world. (I was thinking only
of open-source, cross-platform projects; my apologies for being so
myopic) I should know better; I myself am working with the gnu-make and
mingw-users communities to get gnu-make ported properly to mingw/msys.
If I tried to target all the Windows IDEs, then I'd probably build a bjam,
too (if I were managing the project)....or try and use CMake and/or
bakefile. Alas, these are recent gizmos, and bjam was probably needed
earlier...and Boost has full control of it, which is presumably (by me)
good for the Boost project.
>For more detailed rationale, see:
Thanks for the reference,
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