From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-02 23:13:39
on Sun Dec 02 2007, Jurko GospodnetiÄ <jurko.gospodnetic-AT-docte.hr> wrote:
> Hi all.
>> I had just got a totally crazy idea -- we have some algorithms
>> to compute target paths, and --abbreviate-paths options, and it
>> not quite good yet.
> I have another suggestion... (written directly as I am thinking of it
> in my head so do not scream too loudly if it does not make sense... :-) )...
> Allow a project to specify that some existing feature is always 'xxx'
> and should not be represented using a feature specific folder no matter
> how the feature itself is defined.
> That would mean that if a project needs to be built using different
> values for a single feature then that feature should get its own
> specific build folder, but if it does not then it should not.
> As a note - this would require that the build system prevent such
> project level settings from being violated.
Or you could just not represent the feature when it has its default
value, just as feature relevance worked in BBv1.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
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