From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-13 04:41:42
On Monday 13 November 2006 12:30, Roland Schwarz wrote:
> Johan Nilsson wrote:
> > Isn't this more of a compiler-specific issue than O/S specific?
> Yes, of course, I was a little sloppy.
> > I'd prefer only platform B generating an error. If I explicitly request a
> > shared runtime library I'd like to either get it, or fail.
> Perhaps what irritates me is "error" and "fail", which might mean: stop
> everything, which in case of building a larger set of independent
> targets is too limiting.
> What I would prefer instead is to put <build>no into the build
> in this case. E.g when building the install target of boost this
> would not stop everything but simply skip building this single
> I don't know if this is possible however...
Rene and I talked that most build errors should become non-fatal -- they
should cause dependents to be skipped, but other targets to be built.
Using <build>no sounds like a good idea -- I did not though about it before.
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