From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-07 10:09:13
Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 November 2006 12:03, Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>>> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>>>>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>> Shouldn't toolset names never contain an extra dot because of limitations
>>> of some CD-ROM file system? I darkly seem to remember there was once a rule
>>> about this.
>> In V2, there's a single toolset file for all possible versions. So, using
>> version like "7.1" or "4.1" does not mean you have to have a file named
>> gcc-tools-7.1, and the problem with CD-ROMs is not longer there.
> Yes of course, you're right. So should I change my toolset names? And if
> yes, into what should they be changed? Currently I'm using
> hp_cxx-71_006_tru64, or gcc-3_4_3_tru64. Is hp_cxx-7.1.006_tru64 and
> gcc-3.4.3_tru64 better?
Since one of those is already marked as a release toolset, and since we
are very late in the release cycle, I'd say leave them be. No point in
creating even more extra work of changing to account for such a name change.
-- -- 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