From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-03 16:41:18
On 8/2/06, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Saturday 29 July 2006 15:31, Roland Schwarz wrote:
> >> Rene Rivera wrote:
> >>> Of course... BBv1 issues a warning and continue with the rest of the
> >>> builds. For the top level build that warning is turned off as to not
> >>> annoy the users.
> >> I am sure this already has been noticed, but in case ...
> >> Currently doing a bjam --v2 from the top level directory from boost
> >> is not possible at all (at least on linux) due to this problems.
> > Yes, that's why I've started this thread.
> > Rene, do you think you can do something about that? I realise V2 was not
> > acting like V1, and that's why I've tried to change Jamfile.v2, but it's
> > really good for our Linux users to have nothing building at all?
> Well I'm not going to disable building static-runtime variants. Instead
> I just fixed it so that it implements the BBv1 behavior, except for the
> warning suppression.
You mean, that warning is now emitted? Is it emitted for each target? Well,
it seems a bit unlogical to first request
build properties that can't be built, and then emit warnings. Imagine a user
that just wants to build Boost, and
gets some warnings. Should he be worried by those warnings? In specific case
of Boost, he should not, so we'd need to
- suppress the warnings just for Boost
- stop requesting combination that can't be built
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