From: David Abrahams (gclbb-jamboost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-13 07:13:06
Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> [2003-05-13] Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> 2. That we modify the load sequence to allow not having a Jamroot file...
>>> a. We do the regular search for the Jamroot file, if found great.
>>> b. If not found we create a "fake" project-root where the Jamfile is
>>> located, that is the current dir. Along with this we might want to issue
>>> warning indicating the lack of a formal Jamroot file.
>>I wonder if there's a danger here. Say there's some wayward Jamroot, which
>>not related to the project we're building?
> Yes, that's definitely a danger.
Which is why I didn't propose that. It would mean that moving a
project from place-to-place is completely unsafe.
> And the only solution is to require additional declarations in the
> standalone Jamfile case. But this is one aspect we wanted to move
> away from of V1 (the subproject declaration).
What's wrong with what I proposed? I thought it out fairly
carefully. To recap:
The "right" approach, IMO, is to allow project-root.jam [or
whatever we call it] to fulfill the functions of a top-level
Jamfile if no such Jamfile exists. I'm not sure how much
infrastructure is required to implement that; maybe it already
works (though I doubt it).
The reason this one isn't dangerous, despite its similarity to your
proposal, is that it's the Jamfile we allow you to eliminate, and
there's no upward search for Jamfiles.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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