Re: [jamboost] Re: Target progress

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.

- Volodya