Wolfgang Oertl wrote: > On the other hand, there are many Jamfiles, and just one Jambase file, > so if the latter could be adapted to support both build modes, it would > probably be easier to maintain. The Jamfile could specify what should > be a regular .a library, and what can be either.
The Jambase is not project specific, so in modifying it, you are affecting all projects that use that Jambase, not just ArgyllCMS. To make changes that affect just the ArgyllCMS project, you need to to change the Jamtop and Jamfiles that are part of ArgyllCMS. > It probably has been discussed before, but I can't help mentioning it. > I'm not quite sure what the real advantages of Jam are over gmake, > which is widely deployed, very portable in conjunction with the > autotools package, and everybody knows it, so it is easier to maintain. Jam is platform neutral - gmake etc. are not universal (you won't find them on MSWindows). When I occasionally have to use it, I also find that autotools is extremely unreliable (constant breakage due to version churn), and I find the mish-mash of tools very difficult to understand or modify. Jam in contrast, is just a single program. Bottom line - I chose Jam as a better alternative at the time of creating ArgyllCMS, and if I was at all tempted to change to something else, it wouldn't be gmake + autotools. > No need for a 100k+ Jambase file that provides portability, which > certainly fails now with the shared library patch I concocted. Just my > 2¢. How big is gmake + unix tools + automake ? Graeme Gill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
