From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-10 11:24:34
On Friday 10 December 2004 19:01, David Abrahams wrote:
> > I was thinking about this recently and almost decided that the approach
> > Toon has outlines is the right one. However, you're right that it's
> > better to have a standard name of an option.
> > The problem is this this:
> > Jamroot:
> > lib my_lib : my_lib.cpp ..//some_other_project ;
> > If you run
> > bjam --build_dir=/tmp/foo
> > then my_lib is compiled to /tmp/foo/bin/....., but where
> > does ..//some_other_project go?
> You should take a page from the BBv1 cross-project build system.
> my_lib goes in
> and the rest goes in
> You don't need a directory called "bin."
How is "my_project" and "some_other_project" part derived? From the target id
used to refer to them? This still make a possibility for conflicts.
bjam --build-dir=foo --with_boost_1.32
bjam --build-dir=foo --with_boost_cvs
If "with_boost" only change the directory that
use-project /boost : .. ;
refers, that this will try building both boosts to the same place. This is
probably not very common situation, but still possible. That's the problem
with --build-dir -- if we officially implement a feature, it must be bullet
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