[openbeos] Re: regarding jam
- From: Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:47:56 +0100
On 2007-03-19 at 08:40:14 [+0100], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> "Hugo Santos" <hugosantos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Well, what i meant is that maybe `buildtools/jam/jam0 install` (as is
> > suggested in the documentation) should not install a binary named
> > 'jam' but instead 'hjam' or any other non-conflicting name, since in
> > fact it is not a standard jam 2.5 binary. This is not a big issue: i
> > did this manually. However, others following the documentation
> > blindly
> > may overwrite their previously installed "standard" jam.
>
> Haiku's "jam" is compatible with the original jam; since the original
> jam is also not really maintained anymore, Haiku's version also
> contains fixes for bugs that are still present in 2.5.
I'm not sure how compatible our jam is with respect to the "multiple TOP"
concept introduced with version 2.5. I think it should be OK, but I
wouldn't bet on it. So it certainly doesn't harm to keep the standard jam
(besides the reason Oliver gave).
Jam is pretty much self-contained. Under all platforms but BeOS it consists
only of the jam executable itself. So one doesn't really need to run the
"jam0 install", but can just copy the executable from the generated
"bin.<platform>" directory to whatever place one prefers and name it
completely to ones liking. It is actually recommended to call it "walter"
(sorry, inside joke ;-).
Under Linux I usually have a "$HOME/bin" directory with is listed early in
the path, where I put exectutables that I don't want to install globally or
that shall override the standard versions.
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
