From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-30 10:10:38
Ali Azarbayejani wrote:
> In the current system, how can you possibly declare a patched file
> without making it a main target? I want the user to be able to declare
> something like
> extract foo : foo.tar.gz ;
> patch foo/b : patches/foo/b : <dependency>foo ;
If you want this functionality for end users, then I agree, "foo/b" looks
right name. I have one question left: why the user is expected to update
'foo/b'. Is it because either "foo.tar.gz" or the set of patches can change
while user is working on a project?
> > I'm still to be persuaded that targets should have slashed..
> I'm still to be persuaded that you can implement the above example
> without multiple main targets that have the same base name. If you
> can't, then it would be a hard argument to invent some way of
> distinguishing them other then their pathnames, which are already
> guaranteed to be unique.
> Let me know your prognosis of the above, or if you still need more
> clarification of the example.
It's still possible to use some name-mangling scheme for main targets, but
it's not that nice. I'm +0.5 towards using different separator for targets
now. I'll hope to have fully formed opinion on Monday.
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