On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Fabien Chêne <fabien.chene@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paulo,

Thank you for answering.

2012/10/3 Paulo Márcio Figueiredo Alves <pauloalves1986@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
> Here, where I work, we use prebuilt, and I've done a jam to help us (in
> attached file). But it bothers me when have to I change the compiler, or
> other configurations like runtime-link etc, so I prefer use source code.

I used a different approach, which consists in extensively performing
compile/link tests with autoconf, to generate a .jam which contains
the prebuilt definitions. Honestly, I find it awful, and I would
rather have a builtin support for prebuilt boost libraries if that
would be possible.
I will have a closer look at your solution when I have more time,
would you mind mentioning how it basically works ?
It searches for your dependencies in predefined dirs or using environment variables.
I have attached the file again, but now with comments.

> If there is a way to use source code (even why source code files are smaller
> than prebuilt files) and once compiled, do not compile again unless
> explicit, this way would be the best (my opinion); nevertheless, recompiling
> is not that problem, it's quite fast.

In my opinion, it's not that fast. I remember that the bjam
dependencies calculation of my project was heavily slow down by the
boost library one, but that was before Steven's work, so things might
have changed a bit now...
Anyway, depending on boost sources more or less forces you to embed it
in your project tree, which is not always what is done, and in my
opinion not a very good thing.

Today, we depend on boost prebuilt files, but it's not embedded in project tree, it's kind of installed (we put
 it on LIBS_HOME dir, compile and stage) but we could use the source code in the same way so, once compiled
it will not be compiled again (unless the configuration changes).

Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build