From: Phillip Seaver (phil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-11 09:01:16
Rene Rivera wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> The boost-build.jam at BOOST_ROOT sets
>> JAMFILE = [Bb]uild.jam [Jj]amfile.v2 ;
>> As far as I can tell, the first pattern is not used for anything and
>> can be deleted. Any objections?
> I use it at:
> But since that's not on the regular root it doesn't matter.
> I do have a preferential objection. I prefer the more lucid "build.jam"
> name than any of the others. And as I've mentioned before having an
> extension on the file names is considerably more convenient on people as
> it lets them integrate with the OS facilities.
I second that. It's nice to be able to double-click on "build.jam" in
Windows explorer and have it open in my editor.
>> Secondly, is there any reason we can't change the pattern to
>> JAMFILE = [Jj]amfile(.v2)? ;
>> That would allow us to start writing Jamfiles called "Jamfile," which
>> matches the name used in the BB documentation.
> You could just not set JAMFILE and use the built in value set in
Another reason I prefer "build.jam" and "Jamfile.v2" to "Jamfile" is
that it distinguishes them from Jam's (non-boost.build) files. I have
FreeType in my build tree and build it using bbv2. FreeType is built
using jam and has Jamfile's, but build.jam and Jamfile.v2 get loaded
instead so I can use bbv2 without modifying the distribution.
That said, I'll simply set JAMFILE somewhere in my local copy if you do
change it in the distribution. :-)
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