From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-17 08:57:33
Toon Knapen wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> It's not just about debugging, it's about user experience. The
>> extra-long and complicated command-lines currently generated by BB don't
>> leave people with warm fuzzies. Consider the effort already expended
>> just to get the duplicated library mentions out of the command line.
> but I don't see why (with propagated usage-requirements) we have too
> long command lines (due to unnecessary include paths). If you don't want
> to propagate the include path (and thus you have a source-dependency,
> not a header-dependency), then make the '<include>some_path' a
> requirement instead of a usage-requirement.
If A depends upon B which depends upon C, only the author of B is
qualified to make a decision about whether C's <include>
usage-requirements should be applied to A.
-- 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