Re: [jamboost] The "subproject" rule

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
clear.
> (I'm actually just trying to document existing functionality, and this
might
> discover some more problems)
>
> The parent for each project is now found automatically, using crawl-up.
So,
> 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 --
it
> does not affect project relationship.
>
> 2. Cause the specified project to be build whenever current project is
build.

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?