From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-04 09:58:21
David Abrahams wrote:
> > The bottom line is that we need <use> property to implement weak form of
> > dependency --- one which does not recompiles.
> My "special case" alarm bells as well as my "that's very C++-specific"
> alarm bells, which Ali has trained me to listen for, are all ringing
> right now.
Ick. "recompiles" was unfortunate term.
> Would it perhaps not be better to express that by generating two
> targets, one of which is libx-headers and the other one which is libx
> (or something)? The latter could depend on the former, and propagate
> its usage requirements.
That would mean that
- either two targets much be manually declared --- in a lot of cases, or
- V2 silently creates main targets
And neither approach is right, from my point of view. What I'm suggesting is
that <use> properties does not add any dependencies. In current code, targets
depend only on targets they are built from (or headers, but that's the same).
I don't have more use cases yet, though.
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