Subject: Re: [boost] [modular boost] non-linked headers
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-03 03:56:42
On 3 December 2013 01:06, Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 12/03/2013 01:48 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>> 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.
True, but even if we used a build system that acted differently, we
can't assume that everyone will use it.
> 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.
I was mainly worried about unix variants. I think it's fair to have a
lesser experience on XP, it's pretty much obsolete now (and I write
that as someone who's still on XP).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk