Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Jam rename?
From: Ian Emmons (iemmons_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-17 08:31:11
Suppressing the Boost.Jam "brand" (and packaging bjam within the
Boost.Build distribution) is a great idea.
On Mar 14, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> 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
One could make the same argument about most of the Boost libraries
themselves -- they have little to do with each other. Foe instance,
you don't have to use a single math function to find date-time useful.
Put another way, Boost is a large toolbox full of tools for many
disparate jobs. The fact that one of the tools is a build system
while most of the others are libraries seems like a small distinction
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