Re: [jamboost] Re: tooset flags problem

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-15 09:07:04

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>>I bet this is about extensions again. Maybe we ought to fix the test
>>>>framework to auto-adjust extensions it sees based on the platform?
>>>
>>>No, it's about "aux"! I don't know what device it is, but it's certainly
>>>some reserved device name on Win32. Do an update and try again. It passes
>>>for me on Win2000.
>> 
>> 
>> Anyway, do you have any thoughts about my idea?
>
> Hmm... I thought it's hard, but it isn't, in fact. We'd specify everything
> for Win32/gcc. The framework can adjust extensions automatically.
>
> We cannot specify everything for Linux/gcc because executable files has
> no extension there, and we cannot tell them from other files without
> extension.

I had the same thought. On the other hand we could just say that by
convention we don't use files without an extension unless they are
executables.

> How does it look?

That sounds like a good plan. 

-- 
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution