Subject: Re: [boost] [modular boost] non-linked headers
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-02 22:09:51
On 12/02/2013 05:06 PM, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On 12/03/2013 01:48 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>> On 3 December 2013 00:32, Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> not sure I understood exactly what you refer to, but I did just test
>>> line concatenation, emacs, gedit, vim. All of them seem to change
>>> the file
>>> as I expected. What programs do you have in mind?
>> Git for a start. If you check out a different version of a header it
>> will break the link.
> In that case we should use symlinks for sure. The problem here is that
> the dependency in b2 for the link should catch this in the build, but
> not if the date stamp move in the wrong direction. IBM cleamake solves
> this in clearcase views, but we do not have that build tool. Using
> filetime "greater than" to detect dependency changes is a fundamentally
> broken hack used by almost all build tools.
I thought that I wrote this to try symlinks first.
Anyway, if everyone agrees that the correct behavior
is to create a symlink, then it's really easy to
change. Go to link.jam, find the rule do-file-link,
and switch the order that it checks hard links
> As far as I remember symlinks to files are not Supported on windows
> prior to Vista, how much of a concern should that be? I guess copies
> are annoying for XP hosts, but not as devious as I see hardlinks could be.
A copy has no advantages over a hard link.
- If the source is overwritten in-place, then the
hard link is still correct, and there is no problem.
- If the source is replaced, then the hard link is
left pointing to the original file, and the
state is essentially the same as if we had made
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk