Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam 4.0.. in C++
From: Spencer E. Olson (olsonse_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-24 11:15:03
On Monday 24 May 2010 01:32, Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
> Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > Robert Ramey wrote:
> > > a) Re-define your
> > > task
> > >
> > > Think of bjam as a general purpose make replacement
I use it that way and certainly agree. It would make my effort easier if
Boost.Build had more visibilty and adoption--I would be able to get others to
look more positively on using Boost.Build/bjam. Perhaps they would even try
it. I actually think the documentation is generally pretty good, it just
lacks information when it come to increased complexity.
Perhaps there should be some small generic examples of how to create a builds
for 1) a sample library and 2) a project that aggregates multiple
bjam-managed libraries into the build of a larger application.
> Boost.Build needs more advertisement!
I agree for the reasons I gave above.
I'd like to add that the configuration effort that Volodya is pursuing will
greatly help with adoption from projects that have complicated setups and
I've heard that one of the Sandia projects that was attempting to use
Boost.Build did suffer from speed issues with bjam. In addition, I had heard
that they had problems tieing together huge bits of code because bjam
couldn't handle the complexity.
Noel: Any comment on this (sorry for sending you this directly also, I just
wanted to make sure you got to read this)?
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