Re: [Boost-build] A number of issues with boost.build in 1.36.0

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] A number of issues with boost.build in 1.36.0
From: Alexander Sack (pisymbol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-29 13:51:47

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> This predates me. I think it comes from well, windows. There's folks
> want many variants to be built by default, because they are not link-compatible,
> and because windows developers tend to use different variants depending
> on preferences, project etc. So, Boost.Build V1 was modified to produce several
> variants and decorate them. V2 did exactly same.
>
> I do not think this behaviour makes sense on linux by default.

Thanks for very much for this little tidbit.  Yeah I totally agree,
this shouldn't be the default for *NIX OSes.  Is it feasible to make
the naming based on os.name?

On another note even though I agree using bjam directly to build Boost
is "recommended" it is certainly not as friendly as the current
configure/make paradigm.

-aps