From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-14 17:59:39
David Abrahams wrote:
> 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?
Yes, perfectly, thanks! Ok, on to some more maintenance later today.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk