bjam docs for boost developers?
Hi All, Are there bjam docs for boost developers that explain how to write a Jamfile in the style of the Jamfiles in the existing boost libraries? I already know about: http://www.boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/index.html but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" and "link-fail". -Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Jeremy Siek http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/ Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton email: jsiek@osl.iu.edu C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org) office phone: (812) 856-1820 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Jeremy Siek <jsiek@osl.iu.edu> writes:
Hi All,
Are there bjam docs for boost developers that explain how to write a Jamfile in the style of the Jamfiles in the existing boost libraries?
I already know about:
http://www.boost.org/tools/build/jam_src/index.html
but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" and "link-fail".
Sorry, no. Handholding is available on the jamboost list, though. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Hi Dave, On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Abrahams wrote: dave> > but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" dave> > and "link-fail". dave> dave> Sorry, no. Handholding is available on the jamboost list, though. I thought we required documentation with all boost libraries. Is there a good reason for not documenting Boost.Build? -Jeremy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Siek http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/ Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton email: jsiek@osl.iu.edu C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org) office phone: (812) 856-1820 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Siek wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Abrahams wrote: dave> > but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" dave> > and "link-fail". dave> dave> Sorry, no. Handholding is available on the jamboost list, though.
I thought we required documentation with all boost libraries. Is there a good reason for not documenting Boost.Build?
1. It's not a library ;-) 2. There is documentation. Just not complete documentation, or even thorough :-( -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Jeremy Siek <jsiek@osl.iu.edu> writes:
Hi Dave,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Abrahams wrote: dave> > but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" dave> > and "link-fail". dave> dave> Sorry, no. Handholding is available on the jamboost list, though.
I thought we required documentation with all boost libraries. Is there a good reason for not documenting Boost.Build?
A. time constraints :( B. Version 2 has been getting ready to replace version 1 for a long time now :(, and we don't want to waste time documenting version 1 C. It's not a library, but a tool. There are different requirements. None of that's to say that it shouldn't be better documented. Clearly it should. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Hi Dave, Rene, On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:35 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
Jeremy Siek <jsiek@osl.iu.edu> writes:
Hi Dave,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Abrahams wrote: dave> > but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" dave> > and "link-fail". dave> dave> Sorry, no. Handholding is available on the jamboost list, though.
I thought we required documentation with all boost libraries. Is there a good reason for not documenting Boost.Build?
A. time constraints :(
Yes, that's a tough one. However, it may not take someone experienced with bjam that long to produce the missing parts of the documentation. After all, it is easy to use.
B. Version 2 has been getting ready to replace version 1 for a long time now :(, and we don't want to waste time documenting version 1
How big are the differences between v1 and v2 from the user (boost developer) point of view? Will some of the documentation be reusable? I would hope that most of it would be reusable.
C. It's not a library, but a tool. There are different requirements.
There may be differences in requirements, but I would think documentation would be one of the requirements in common.
None of that's to say that it shouldn't be better documented. Clearly it should.
Right. I volunteer to edit and revise if such documentation is written up. Cheers, Jeremy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Jeremy Siek http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/ Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton email: jsiek@osl.iu.edu C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org) office phone: (812) 856-1820 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Hi Jeremy,
Hi Dave, Rene,
On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:35 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
Jeremy Siek <jsiek@osl.iu.edu> writes:
Hi Dave,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, David Abrahams wrote: dave> > but that doesn't cover stuff like "run" and "compile" dave> > and "link-fail". dave> dave> Sorry, no. Handholding is available on the jamboost list, though.
I thought we required documentation with all boost libraries. Is there a good reason for not documenting Boost.Build?
I think this question belongs to Boost.Build mailist list. I'm going to post a reply there. - Volodya
participants (1)
-
David Abrahams -
Jeremy Siek -
Rene Rivera -
Vladimir Prus