Re: [Boost-build] bjam vs b2

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] bjam vs b2
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-24 16:55:41

AMDG

On 10/24/2013 01:36 PM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> On 24 October 2013 21:30, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2013 10:10 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>>
>>> The BBv2 reference
>>> (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_54_0/doc/html/bbv2/reference.html)
>>> mixes the two names what IMO may easily confuse:
>>>
>>> "bjam's first job upon startup is to load the Jam code that implements
>>> the build system."
>>>
>>> "In this case, running b2 anywhere..."
>>>
>>> The bjam vs b2 is not explained anywhere, neither there is
>>> "bjam is now b2" step mentioned in the history.qbk.
>>>
>>> I noticed one similar 'complain' posted by Paul A. Bristow in 2011
>>> (http://lists.boost.org/boost-build/2011/07/25216.php)
>>>
>>> "I don't feel I've been told about b2 versus bjam?"
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the documentation be clearer on bjam vs b2?
>>> The bjam occurrences in the BBv2 docs are still frequent:
>>>
>>> $ cd trunk/tools/build/v2/doc
>>> $ ack -l -c bjam
>>> src/extending.xml:3
>>> src/install.xml:2
>>> src/reference.xml:1
>>> src/architecture.xml:8
>>> src/tasks.xml:1
>>> history.qbk:23
>>>
>>> Is it OK to fix those by search & replace method?
>>
>>
>> Please check that each one makes sense.
> 
> Makes sense in what...sense?
> That both commands are interchangeable, hence bjam word is a synonim of b2?
> 

Anything describing how to use the tool
should be changed to b2.  Historical notes
should use the name that was correct at
the time referred to.

> I look at the two binaries:
> 
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 mloskot users 248640 Oct 24 17:43 b2
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 mloskot users 248640 Oct 24 17:43 bjam
> 
> and it shows me two the same executable programs with different names.
> 
> What the duplicate is for? is an obvious question to me
> and I think it would be good to address it in the documentation,
> even if the reason is: to preserve compatibility with old scripts
> referring to the old name bjam.
> 

That's exactly the reason.

> I haven't found any such note.
> 
> Best regards,
> 

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe