From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-14 12:24:17
Joel de Guzman <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem
>> where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to
>> work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so
>> BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present).
>> Also, please peruse the list below.
>> Lines beginning with +: only has Jamfile.v2
>> Lines beginning with -: only has Jamfile
>> The lines beginning with - are of the most immediate concern - they
>> indicate a directory where we may need to make the Jamfile compatible
>> with BBv2.
> Please be clear on what to do with + and -; e.g. if it's a -,
> do we add a Jamfile.v2 and remove the old Jamfile? If it's a +,
> then what should we do?
If you successfully complete the initial request to clear out your
BBv1 Jamfiles, you don't need to think about this.
The "-" indicators are only hints to look for trouble spots. As you
know, BBv2 works with either name. In places where only Jamfile.v2 is
present (+) there is obviously no problem, since BBv1 is gone. BBv2
gives priority to Jamfile.v2, so in places where both names are
present there is no immediate problem either (though I'd like the old
Jamfile deleted in that case). In places where only Jamfile is
present (-), it could be a BBv1-compatible Jamfile, and that would be
a problem, because it can break the BBv2 build process when invoked
from ancestor or descendant directories.
Does that help?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk