From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-16 08:03:02
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 23:01, Joao Abecasis wrote:
> > There are two alternatives:
> > 1. You always build quickbook with the default toolset (which is the
> > first declared one)
> I used to sympathize with this option because it gave the toolset more
> control, like setting <variant>release by default. However, it seems
> that this approach doesn't live up to the user's expectations.
> > 2. You build quickbook with whatever toolset user has specified on the
> > command line. Note that if a user has not specified any toolset on the
> > command line, everything will be built with the default one (again, the
> > first declared).
> I was trying to avoid generating quickbook multiple times if multiple
> toolsets were provided on the command line... but now I see boostbook
> itself already generates lots of errors in this scenario, so I can just
> forget about it.
Do you mean that if quickbook worked for all compilers and for all settings,
you would retain the current behaviour of quickbook.jam?
> ... patience ...
> ... deleting some lines from the quickbook toolset ...
> Done! More power to the user!
I still think that generally building a tool once with default toolset is
good. However in the specific case of quickbook I just trust your judgement.
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