From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-13 17:04:09
[2003-10-13] Peter Steiner wrote:
>Thank you for your quick response!
>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:07:24 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I would like to define an additional transformation for stripping my
>>>executables. What would be the best way?
>> The short answer is, yes you can. The long answer depends on which
>> of BB you are using. Given your previous post about v1, and that's the
>Unfortunately (or fortunately ;-) I switched my project to BBv2 which
>simplified my jamfiles a lot. Most of my other problems I could solve
>digging in the archives of this maillist...
>> version I can talk about confidently, I'll answer for the BBv1 case.
>Does that mean, that for BBv2 Vladimir is the man to ask?
Yes. He comes back online late at night from my timezone (GMT -6)... He's in
>>From superficially looking at the sources I guess I'd have to do
>- declaring a type (where?) like it is done in builtin.jam
>- write a rule like register-c-compiler (where?)
>- write a rule (and register it) that strips my executables (in my
>Am I on the right track?
I think you can do all that in your own tools file that you can then "use".
I suggest you look at how boostbook adds it's targets and types.
>> Yes.. BBv1 targets have the directory as part of the target ID (in the
>> grist: <>).
>Is that true for BBv2 targets, too?
AFAIK yes, but not in the same way ;-) I don't think it's parts of the
grist, but just part of the target ID.
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq
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