From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 10:49:57
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Friday 08 July 2005 18:33, Andrey Melnikov wrote:
>>Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>Simply, for projects name is often not needed. You can refer to a project
>>>using directory name. For targets, name is the only way to refer to them,
>>>so the idea that target can be anonymous did not occur to me.
>>Most projects need just one stage rule. The rule is always called to
>>install all binary components into one directory for testing, because
>>components are useless without their binary dependencies. So there's no
>>to refer to the rule in other places, just like there's often no need to
>>refer to a project.
> Ok, but naming it something like 'dist' should not be very complex ;-)
It isn't complex :) But I think if there's an easy way to make it
optional, why not?
For me, staging isn't "make install", to make "dists" I need a custom
script which will among other things perform automatic regression
testing, create a label in my source control etc.
"dist" is more like "debug-sandbox". Boost doesn't need such a sandbox,
because its libraries are independent, does it? I think that's why so
many useful use cases aren't covered by BB yet.
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