Thanks for the information. Is there a way to build libraries, i.e. boost.python, without bjam? G. --- In Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com, Markus Werle <yg-boost-users@m...> wrote:

gcs_99 wrote:

...

Can anyone point me to directions for building boost under linux. I have installed bjam. When I type bjam -sTOOLS=gcc in my boost root dir I get tons of errors.

I understand that much of boost is implemented as templates in header files. Is there an install script to place these in the correct location for gcc?

Hi Greg,

On Unices the jam stuff is rather optional. I happily use boost just by including the headers. For this I unpacked the sources into /opt and that's it. In case I have to compile additional *.cpp or *.ipp files I tell so to my own Makefile(.am), that's it.

Bjam may be completely ignored. Since bjam is as complicated as GNU autotools there is no need to migrate (at least _I_ do not see _any_ advantage, maybe I am blind)

OTOH "tons of errors" might be due to the gcc version You are using. Make sure You have at least gcc-3.2.1 installed on Your system, otherwise boost really ain't no fun. Please also avoid gcc-3.2 which has some rather hidden but fatal bugs in it.

In general it's a good idea to upgrade gcc frequently if You are dealing with C++. Like this You get rid of a lot of pain and stay up to date with standard issues getting resolved (or dissolved)

If You can afford the time try out intel's C++ 7.0 on linux. It's free on that platform and its really pedantic if You use option -ansi. Like this the learning curve gets a little steeper.

Markus

Could you supply a link to rpms? Also, the errors that I am getting during the buid are of the variety gcc-C++-action ../../libs/python/bin/libbpl.so/gcc/debug/runtime-link-dynamic/shared-linkable-true/dict.o : command not found g++: cannot specify -o with -c or -S and multiple compilations Does anyone know what this means? Thanks. G --- In Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com, "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins@v...> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:47:36PM +0000, gcs_99 <gregsteele@w...> wrote:

...

Thanks for the information.

Is there a way to build libraries, i.e. boost.python, without bjam?

I suspect that would be more trouble than it's worth.

Binary packages exist in both Debian and rpm formats, which is likely an easier route.

-S

--- In Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com, Markus Werle <yg-boost-users@m...> wrote:

Steve M. Robbins wrote:

...

On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:47:36PM +0000, gcs_99 <gregsteele@w...> wrote:

...

Thanks for the information.

Is there a way to build libraries, i.e. boost.python, without bjam?

I suspect that would be more trouble than it's worth.

I suspect that using the brand new versions of GNU autotools would make a lot of sense here. A simple Makefile.am and configure.in may be sufficient to get rid of any inconvenience forever. (I assume that it makes perfect sense for developers to install cygwin or similar sofwtare on win* platforms, Your mileage may vary in this point)

Note that this also would ease the configuration for different platforms and compilers through a single top config.h.

If You are interested to include it into the boost tree and if You give me some time I volunteer to create a first merely working alpha fileset which gives You an idea how easy the GNU autotools are, once You know how they oughta be used.

Markus

I am willing to be a guinea pig for bjam-free linux builds. As long as you don't mind the swearing. Greg