From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-25 12:28:58
On Friday 24 November 2006 23:48, J. van der Wulp wrote:
> Hello Vladimir,
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> >> The output of a clean build of the project that is attached gives:
> > Thanks. I have reproduced the problem and hopefully fix it tomorrow.
> That would be great; you have all done an amazing job so far with Boost
> Build v2.
> > But, just to clarify -- is it fine for your that if <build>no is
> > propagated, then nothing at all will be built? Including any install
> > targets you might have -- nothing.
> Yes, I think it is the most intuitive. That is, if executable A cannot
> be build due to propagation of <build>no and executable B can be build,
> then it would be nice if executable B is installed.
> For example:
> exe A : A.cpp some-library-with-build-no ;
> exe B : B.cpp ;
> stage install
> : A
> : <location>/something/bin
In this case, the <install> target will get <build>no -- since usage
requirements are propagated all the way up. Do you suggest that 'install' is
specially coded to still install the other targets?
What precisely are you trying to achieve with <build>no in properties? Do you
want to avoid compiling lots of source files that depend on missing libraries
and won't likely compile anyway?
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