From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-25 04:00:34
On Wednesday 24 May 2006 18:51, David Abrahams wrote:
> "Bojan Resnik" <resnikb_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> Concerting <stdlib>, one possible approach is to go to property.jam,
> >> rule expand-subfeatures-in-condition, and adjust the hardcoded list of
> >> non-checked features.
> >> The thing is, I believe that hardcoded lists like this should have at
> >> most two elements, and adding <stdlib> will make it three-element list,
> >> so maybe we need to start looking for a general solution.
> >> - Volodya
> > How about disabling validation in conditions altogether? Validation
> > is a problem espesially for dynamically extended features. For
> > example, I have a feature that detects all installed versions of a
> > tool on the client machine, and extends the feature <tversion> with
> > the detected versions. Some projects might require conditions such as
> > <tversion>2.0:<define>T_2, which produce validation errors when run on
> > machines that do not have tool version 2.0 installed. Instead, it
> > should simply evaluate to 'false', when <tversion> is not 2.0.
> That sounds right to me.
This was just implemented and checked in.
-- Vladimir Prus http://vladimir_prus.blogspot.com Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-build2
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