Subject: Re: [Boost-build] A number of issues with boost.build in 1.36.0
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-29 14:19:13
On Wednesday 29 October 2008 20:51:47 Alexander Sack wrote:
> 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?
No. We should be using target os, as given by the 'target-os' feature, as opposed
to host os, given by 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.
I'm planning an easier solution post 1.37.
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