Am I the only one who thinks this has gotten completely off-topic?
-----Original Message----- From: Boost
On Behalf Of Mateusz Loskot via Boost Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 5:01 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Mateusz Loskot Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 16:57, Rene Rivera
wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:29 AM Mateusz Loskot via Boost
wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 05:18, Peter Dimov via Boost
wrote: Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Indeed: While the above is a great starting point to support what I want, I don't want to loose the ability for BPL to be built (and tested) as part of the rest of Boost. I would thus prefer something that gives me the ability to choose the build strategy e.g. using some command-line option, including flag to be passed to the build (e.g., `b2 ... standalone=on`), rather than having to modify the (build) code.
Scanning for Jamroot to identify the project root is fundamental to Jam (the Perforce one). We could perhaps add something like
b2 --jamroot=.
that would act as if there were an empty Jamroot at . (or equivalently if the Jamfile at . were named Jamroot.)
Does it mean there could be two jamfile-s? libs/gil/Jamroot for standalone build libs/gil/Jamfile for in-Boost tree build and the latter is simply ignored in normal b2 run, ie. without --jamroot=.
No. Such a theoretical feature would use the existing Jamfile at the location as the jamroot.
I think, this would be also very helpful to apply the Jamroot trick [1], recently presented to me by Steven Watanabe, to significantly speed up b2 startup procedures:
But, yes, it would allow for that trick. In general I think the boost-root/Jamroot does way-way too much. If Boost where restructure to be modular only most of that work would unnecessary.
That sounds compelling enough to me :-) Thanks for the clarification
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost