Re: [boost] [modular-boost] Development procedures

Subject: Re: [boost] [modular-boost] Development procedures
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-03 16:37:26

On 2/3/2014 3:49 PM, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 05:29 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
>> On 2/3/2014 11:00 AM, Vyacheslav Andrejev wrote:
>>> Hello Gennadiy,
>>>
>>>>> can run "b2 headers" again. If we were using soft links we wouldn't
>>>>> have this problem, I thought there was consensus to do that, but no
>>>>> one seems to be doing it.
>>>>>
>>> GR> There is no soft links on Windows.
>>>
>>> 1. There are soft links in Windows. See documentation for mklink /D.
>>
>> mklink without any option creates a file symbolic link.
>>
>>> 2. This is exactly what b2 tries to do: create soft links. Only it
>>> fails, since in Windows you need elevated privileges by default to do
>>> this. Then b2 falls back to creating hard links to files, since it
>>> cannot create soft links to directories.
>>
>> It does not test whether the user has administrator priveleges or not on
>> Windows in order to create file symbolic links.
>
> What test are you suggesting and what should b2 do given each result of
> that test?

I do not know. I only know that as a user with administrator rights on 
Windows 7 that I can create symbolic links. Yet when using 'b2 headers' 
the links to files in the modular-boost boost subdirectory are hard links.

>
>
>> I have brought this issue many times before in various posts. The 'b2
>> headers' command should always create symbolic links if possible, not
>> hard links which are problematical in our modular-boos setup. Each time
>> I have brought up this issue I have been told we are waiting for
>> modular-boost issues itself to be fully resolved. We are evidently still
>> waiting.
>
> This thread is more about credentials on windows than the more general
> questions we have debated on the preference on use of hardlinks over
> symlinks to files in current "b2 headers".  I think there are more or
> less consensus that it will be better to use symlinks also for files,
> but Beman asked for requirements and time to let the modularization dust
> settle before we made changes.  I have not got any feedback on the
> requirements I posted, and there have as far as I have noted been a few,
> but not many reported real problems with hardlinks.

The problem with hardlinks has already been reported and commented on. 
Do I or anyone else really need to explain this again vis-a-vis 
modular-boost ?

>  So rushing this may
> not be warranted.  Nevertheless, that should not prevent you from trying
> preference for symlinks in "b2 headers" if you need to, and report results.

Why not have someone knowledgable with Boost Build actually make the 
changes in the 'develop' branch to 'b2 headers' so that symbolic links 
get created on Windows rather than hard links when the end-user's 
administrator priveleges allow it ? I would be glad to test this out. I 
assume that you may be knowledgeable enough with Boost build to do this, 
but I am not.

>
> End-note:  this thread started with a problem related to symlinks not
> working as expected on Windows, so the changes you say we are waiting on
> would likely not resolve anything here.

It started  with Gennadiy Rozental asking about a number of issues with 
Modular Boost, one of which is:

"1. Why does ./b2 headers on windows creates hardlink for each file instead
of directories? The process takes forever."