Re: [jamboost] Re: link-compatibility poll: results and feature removal

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-23 02:21:21

David Abrahams wrote:

> > Yes, since <explicitly-relevant-feature>mode is in usage requirements and
> > will propagate to 'app'.
>
> Yikes, that's long!

Right, I just used the 100% self-explanatory name.

> What's wrong with
>
> <relevant-feature>mode
>
> ??

Nothing, this is fine. I also though about <relevant-here>mode.

> And how is ignored-unless-explicitly-made-relevant different from the
> default? If it isn't, it should be removed. If it is, we should
> find a shorter name. IMO.

By default, a feature is consired relevant to all build products. E.g. if you 
declare a feature and it's not incidental and not free, it will show up in 
target paths. 

What we need is a feature which will be added to target paths only for main 
targets which ask for it. So, maybe the feature property should be called 
'target-specific'..

- Volodya

- Volodya