From: Jurko GospodnetiÄ (jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-05 18:01:16
> Using "project.jam" and "build.jam" has the interesting advantage that
> it semantically works if one wants to use the files directly as
> executable scripts. For example if one adds the shell run line to the of:
> One could then use as:
> cd /path/to/my/project
> ./project.jam --prefix=/opt/my-project install debug
> cd /path/to/my/project/tests
> ./build.jam debug msvc-8.0
Hmmm... simply running bjam in that folder seems simpler and more to
the point as there can be at most one project per folder. User always
wants to build that project and there is no need for him to think about
technicalities like whether the project file in that folder is named
Jamroot or Jamfile.
There is no difference between them from the user's perspective. The
difference is only internal, used by Boost Build to detect the scope of
the project, but the user simply wants to build 'this project' and
expects it to live in whatever scope it needs to live in.
Thinking about it now, I am not so sure that your example has the
'correct' semantics. In both cases user wants to do the same thing -
'build this project', but is forced to use different commands.
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