Re: [jamboost] More common install...

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-14 08:09:44

[2003-10-14] John Maddock wrote:

>> I've just put in the initial implementation of the "install" rule. It
>works
>> as such:
>>
>> install ( name type : sources + : options * )
>>
>> "name" is the symbolic name of the library, and is currently used to
>support
>> the "--without-<library>" option.
>
>OK, I've been testing that on NT with VC7.1 - first thing is that the
>boost-root/Jamfile doesn't work, because the paths are in Windows backslash
>format so the rule:
>
> [ MATCH ^(.*build/$(JAMFILE))$ : [ glob-tree $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs :
>$(JAMFILE) ] ]
>
>finds nothing, replacing it with:
>
> [ MATCH ^(.*build[/\\:]$(JAMFILE))$ : [ glob-tree $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs :
>$(JAMFILE) ] ]
>
>Fixes the problem, but I don't know if this is the best solution.

It's a reasonable solution. In fact, I think I've used that same solution
before ;-)

>On file naming:
>
>I note that the version tag is different on NT and Unix: "131" verses
>"1.31", since multiple '.'s are supported in NT file names I see no need
for
>this different - it just unnecessarily complicates things (particularly for
>those of us that supply makefiles). However I wonder if for really
portable
>names we should actually be using '_' as a separator throughout.

Given that this version number is not the postfix, changing the separator to
'_' should not be a problem.

I'll make those changes.

>Otherwise looks good.

Good :-)

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq