From: Pedro Ferreira (pedro.ferreira_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-24 09:23:51
> > you'll get different names for each (debug release profile) * (static
> > shared) combination: a_d, a_ds, a_r, a_rs, a_p, a_ps.
> So, in theory it's possible to confuse different targets, but probably
> not a problem in practice, especially as V1 seem to have the same
I didn't want to add a policy but just a means to do it.
> > Please let me know if this implementation is correct or if I should
> > anything.
> I've comitted your patch. Thanks!
> I have some considerations on topic:
> 1. The copyright on tag.py is not correct. Would you mind if I replace my
> with yours?
Please do it.
> 2. Currently, "tag" does not work on "stage" rule. But maybe it's not that
> 3. There are other ways how 'tag' could have been implemented. One
> would be to use a special generator which is used when there's 'tag'
> property. In fact Rene has written some classes to support such a
> I've decided to apply your patch as it is, since
> - it your patch works on any main target, while if using other approach,
> would work only for targets which use generators.
> (Dave, if you recall, we once discussed the idea to eliminate all classes
> derived from basic-target,
> to make all generators classes concrete, and introducing some new entity
> handle "smarts" in build process. This sounds like additional motivation.
> could have a "Builder" which is selected when there's "tag" property).
> - it's simple and has a test, so even if we decide to move "tag-name" rule
> somewhere else, we can easily do so.
Please feel free to add or remove it whenever you want.
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