Re: [Boost-build] Boost Jamfile.v2 fixes

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-21 12:53:04

On Saturday 21 October 2006 20:43, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 October 2006 20:11, Rene Rivera wrote:
> >> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> >>> I've also committed this. The set of variants built on Linux with V2
> >>> now is the same as with V1.
> >>
> >> This is the problem I keep bringing up... It works for Linux but doesn't
> >> for anything else. The set of libraries on Windows will now be different
> >> from what BBv1 generates.
> >
> > Am I right the V1 produces different set of libraries on Windows and
> > Linux too?
>
> Yes, that's correct. More accurately different toolsets produce only
> what they can :-)
>
> > If so, can we use "if" on OS name in V2?
>
> Well we could. But that may not account for differences in toolsets
> within one OS. After all there are many toolsets (and C++ runtimes) on
> both Linux and Windows individually.

Well, let's look at my changes.

1. Building both <link>static and <link>shared. I think this is just right.
2. Building without <runtime-debugging>on. It looks like V1 does not request 
this variant, right?
3. I've also removed the <runtime-link>static / <runtime-link>shared. In 
retrospect, I'm not sure why it caused problem -- the static runtime should 
have being just ignored. I'll look again.

- Volodya