From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-12 07:49:09
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Michael Stevens wrote:
>> On Tuesday 11 May 2004 22:38, Rene Rivera wrote:
>> > Michael Stevens wrote:
>> > > It is a little more complete. I call it "intellinux.jam" which I find
>> > > visually simpler when specifying properties. Does anyone have any
>> > > strong preferences for naming?
>> > "icc-linux", or "intel-linux" :-)
>> I'm not sure if using '-' is not confusing!
> I'm not sure, either. More specifically, I'm not sure we'll handle
> intel-linux-8.0 correctly. The dash would make sense of "linux" were just a
> subvariant of <toolset>intel, but since intel on linux and windows has
> different command line interface, I'm not sure having one toolset with two
> subvariants makes sense.
> As for icclinux vs. intellinux -- I think I'd prefer the first, but it's not
> very important, IMO.
I realize that it's very different on different platforms, but I feel
strongly that the platform (linux/win32) should not be part of the
toolset name. We should have one "intel" toolset from a user's POV.
If it needs to be dispatched to two subsidiary files, that's fine.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
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