From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-06 12:31:09
Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> On Monday 06 November 2006 12:34, Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>>> Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>>>> We could "cheat" by replacing the v1 source files with a zipball --
>>>>>>> that wouldn't generate any inspection failures.
>>>>>> I'm all for just removing them. AFAIK the only reason they are still
>>>>>> around is that there are testers still using BBv1.
>>>>> Well if there are, that's gotta stop. They're not even getting
>>>>> complete results anymore; I have stopped maintaining v1 Jamfiles.
>>>> Well one way to make them stop is to remove the files :-) And by them
>>>> AFAICT it at least refers to:
>>> What makes you think so? I've been running with V2 for ages now.
>> I suppose lack of "-V2" in the tester id ;-)
Strangely that was not the entire reason :-) I also looked at the
version number used in the toolsets. For BBv2 they usually contain a
".", whereas for BBv1 the toolsets don't use a period.
> Is this supposed to be the case? If yes, I must have missed it.
Volodya mentioned it long ago in the testing list. But since the BBv1
files are now gone from RC_1_34_0 it doesn't really matter any more ;-)
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
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