From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-05 10:00:45
\From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
> It was agreed that "subproject" is a better name than the current
> "subinclude", but now I realize that semantic of "subproject" is not
> (I'm actually just trying to document existing functionality, and this
> discover some more problems)
> The parent for each project is now found automatically, using crawl-up.
> what should "subproject" do:
> 1. Just load the specified jamfile, so that it could declare some
> proejct-ids. In this case, the "subproject" name is completely wrong --
> does not affect project relationship.
> 2. Cause the specified project to be build whenever current project is
It seems like "subproject" is wrong in either case.
> The latter option is better for me... and it is the current behaviour
> (although untested).
> Would we need a separate functionality for the first option?
I don't think so. Why bother explicitly loading a (sub)project if you don't
want its components to be built?
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk