Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Jam rename?
From: Alexander Sack (pisymbol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-14 11:09:24

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Dean Michael Berris
<mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Ilya Sokolov <ilyasokol_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> Quite a number of folks tend to confuse Boost.Build and Boost.Jam,
>>> which is not only bad for "marketing" purposes, but also leads to people
>>> not understanding Boost.Build exists, has to be installed, has a version
>>> number, and all other kinds of confusion.
>>> While previously Boost.Jam was close to Perforce Jam, it is presently
>>> a permanent and considerably diverged fork. In light of that, what would
>>> be the opinion about renaming 'bjam' binary into something.
>> +1.
> +1.
> Should we just call it simply Boost.Build?
> We can maintain 'bjam' as the tool's name for a few releases, and
> maybe just move to 'bbuild' or 'boost-build' that's packaged with the
> Boost.Build .jam libraries.
> Great idea BTW. This should make things simple.


I think this is the best suggestion hands-down. bjam alone is pretty
useless without Boost.Build for 99% of the folks consuming it.

The other issue I have is that bjam/Boost.Build has very little to do
with Boost as a whole. I understand its the Boost project and team
that maintains it and supports it etc. But you don't have to use a
single Boost library or header to find bjam/Boost.Build a great build

Btw, I think that's what CMake and other tools have as an advantage,
i.e folks think Bjam/Boost.Build is only valuable if you use Boost.

My 2 cents.


Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at