From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-18 23:00:27
Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Monday 18 September 2006 17:58, David Abrahams wrote:
>> > This is yet another example where 'relevant features' would help.
>> Short answer: yes, this is exactly the feature that addresses your
>> > Yet another example is 'bison' -- that just generates a header file
>> > and does not depend on any features.
>> > When we discussed this before, Juergen mentioned that it can be nicer to
>> > use full set of properties for all paths
>> Meaning that all features are considered relevant?
>> > so that there are no files shared between different variants, and if
>> > you clean on variant, you don't need to rebuild some other.
>> IIUC, I don't think that's a good idea. It seems like a very
>> specialized use case and I'd rather err on the side of rebuilding.
>> People can always hack up scripts to do that kind of thing.
> I don't see how to hack such a script.
Find the variant build directory and rm -r?
> And it might be not so specialized
> case -- just a project that takes an hour to compile.
Either you need all the build products to be updated, in which case
sharing saves much build time, or you don't, in which case you can
selectively request them to be rebuilt. What's the problem we're
solving by adding lots of meaningless properties to a target path?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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