I'm opposed to this idea because:
0. Testing this configuration is a burden on developers
1. It gives an implied guarantee that it will work for the user (see 2)
2. We have no control over compiler flags or other settings that may be neccessary for the library to work, nor that different libraries are compiled with compatible options
3. If we don't need that control for some libraries today, but we need it tomorrow, we'll have to take the feature of being able to do the big #include back from the user
Ok, I give up ;) I did look at the existing jamfiles, etc. I still think that from all the users using boost, there is quite a little percentage that are willing to use bjam to compile the libraries needing separate compilation (of course, that's just my fild guess). Maybe to simplify the process, in boost-root (where boost-build.jam file exists), we could have a makefile which automatically builds bjam from the source files and the invokes it with a given configuation. like: make msvc (instead of bjam "-sTOOLS=msvc") Unfortunately, I don't have any makefile knowledge. Best, John