From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-31 00:10:30
Jurko GospodnetiÄ wrote:
> Anyone played around with this patch yet? Anyone have something
I've tested the attached patch locally.
* prefix header glob paths with $(BOOST_ROOT) so that they will be
correct when bjam is run from a different directory.
* ditto for <install-source-root>
* replace nonexistent /boost/install-headers with
in boost-install. (This target was renamed in )
> Here are some of my comments on it:
> * Rule boost-install() seems to have an echo call leftover from some
> debugging/development effort.
Oops. I've removed it.
> * What is the install-proper-headers target? Or more precisely, what
> is the install-proper stage target and how does it relate to the
> install stage target created in the boost-install() rule.
The install-proper does all the actual installation.
If the install target created by boost-install actually worked,
it would install all the headers and a single library.
> * Not sure if your question 'where does the install-headers target
> get created' is still an active one but as I see it it gets created in
> the very same package.install() call that uses it.
I was referring to the use of /boost/install-headers which does not in
The package.install creates something more like
> If this is a valid patch that actually does solve a real usability
> problem with the Boost library's build, I'd hate to see it fall
> through the cracks.
Another related problem is to make
bjam msvc -n --with-iostreams trunk//install
work, where trunk is my working copy.
After applying this patch, only the default-build
is still wrong.
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