Re: [jamboost] patch boost-base.jam project wide settings

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-26 11:10:30

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Rivera" <grafik666_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] patch boost-base.jam project wide settings

> On 2002-02-26 at 12:08 PM, witt_at_[hidden] (Thomas Witt) wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >The attached patch introduces a new rule template that can be used to
> >conveniently define project wide requirements. Furthermore
> >a change to the with-command-file rule is made to allow for
> >additional prefix string that contains non-sources. I need this to
circumvent
> >cmdline restrictions with long libpathes on windows.
>
> Don't know about the with-command-file stuff, but defining project wide
> requirements is already supported by the use of "variant". And is the main
> reason I extented the "variant" rule. Your example could be written as
such
> instead...

No, they're really different features. Thomas' feature could, for example,
be used to specify the build requirements for Boost.Python modules, but one
should still be able to build any module in any of the variants
(debug/release/etc.)

I like his feature in principle and would be interested in seeing some
documentation.
I think "template" isn't the best name. Probably "requirement-set" would be
better.

-Dave