Re: [Boost-build] Building Boost with multiple python versions

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Building Boost with multiple python versions
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-13 16:39:39

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost-build <
boost-build_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> having learned a bit more about Boost.Build and its internals, I'm
> trying to apply my understanding.
>
>
> My user-config.jam file contains
>
>   using python : 2.7 ;
>   using pyhon : 3.5 ;
>
> Then I issue this command:
>
>   ./b2 --with-python python=2.7
>
>
> Inside my Jamfile, I see that `feature.values python` reports "2.7 3.5",
> independently on what I specify on the command-line. So it seems I'm
> missing something:
>
> What is b2's interpretation of the above user-config.jam file ?
> And what does it mean to provide the `python=2.7` option on the
> command-line ?
>
> How can I specify that I want to
>
> * build with Python 2.7 only
> * build with Python 3.5 only
> * build both variants at the same time
>

I would like to add to this question. On windows we often intermingle
32-bit and 64-bit builds. Is it correct to setup my user-config.jam as:

using python
: 2.7 # version
: C:\\Python27-32\\python.exe # Interperter/path to dir
: C:\\Python27-32\\include # includes
: C:\\Python27-32\\libs # libs
: <address-model>32 # conditions
;

using python
: 2.7 # version
: C:\\Python27-64\\python.exe # Interperter/path to dir
: C:\\Python27-64\\include # includes
: C:\\Python27-64\\libs # libs
: <address-model>64 # conditions
;

using python
: 3.5 # version
: C:\\Python35-32\\python.exe # Interperter/path to dir
: C:\\Python35-32\\include # includes
: C:\\Python35-32\\libs # libs
: <address-model>32 # conditions
;

using python
: 3.5 # version
: C:\\Python35-64\\python.exe # Interperter/path to dir
: C:\\Python35-64\\include # includes
: C:\\Python35-64\\libs # libs
: <address-model>64 # conditions
;

I've fought with both of these issues before (multiple versions and
multiple architectures on the same PC) but never had a good understanding
of if I was doing things correctly or if they were working as I assumed.

Thanks,
Tom