From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-30 12:33:11
> The advantage is that you get the other usage requirements. In the
> version I have, boost//headers has "<include>.
> <define>BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1" in its usage requirements. So, that will
> add BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 to the list of defines for your compiles in
> addition to giving you the include directory. That's one of the major
> advantages of boost-build for me: the project sets usage requirements
> so that all the project users don't have to.
> As David said, you should use "/boost//headers". The other user may
> have to do "use-project /boost : path_to_boost ;", depending on their
That would include me as well, without the use-project I get an error from
bjam. It still means hardcoding the path-to-boost though which is what I am
trying to avoid.
A couple of asides:
1) I don't see this mentioned in the docs - or at least a quick grep didn't
find it. How about a "Refering to Boost and other bjam.v2 based projects"
2) I'm still not convinced that defining BOOST_ALL_NO_LIB globally is a good
idea, it just masks any bugs/incompatibilities between bbv2's name mangling
and what auto-linking expects, but <shrug> whatever.
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