On 8/2/06, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Saturday 29 July 2006 15:31, Roland Schwarz wrote:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> Of course... BBv1 issues a warning and continue with the rest of the
>>> builds. For the top level build that warning is turned off as to not
>>> annoy the users.
>> I am sure this already has been noticed, but in case ...
>>
>> Currently doing a bjam --v2 from the top level directory from boost tree
>> is not possible at all (at least on linux) due to this problems.
>
> Yes, that's why I've started this thread.
>
> Rene, do you think you can do something about that? I realise V2 was not
> acting like V1, and that's why I've tried to change Jamfile.v2, but it's not
> really good for our Linux users to have nothing building at all?

Well I'm not going to disable building static-runtime variants. Instead
I just fixed it so that it implements the BBv1 behavior, except for the
warning suppression.

You mean, that warning is now emitted? Is it emitted for each target? Well, it seems a bit unlogical to first request

build properties that can't be built, and then emit warnings. Imagine a user that just wants to build Boost, and

gets some warnings. Should he be worried by those warnings? In specific case of Boost, he should not, so we'd need to

either

- suppress the warnings just for Boost

- stop requesting combination that can't be built

- Volodya