Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Call of interest
From: Konstantin Litvinenko (to.darkangel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-05-28 12:38:29
Vladimir Prus Ð¿Ð¸ÑÐµÑ:
>> If Jam has that feature then its implementable. So why stick with
>> Jam only because Jam has it? Yes, it is require implement/test that
>> functionality. But I don't scare by that - I will do it and will have
>> that feature along with those Jam don't have.
> I don't claim that this feature is extra hard to implement and you won't
> ever implement it. All I am saying is that until that feature is available,
> we won't be able to consider using your build engine for boost.build.
Ah, I understand. Well, I will try to implement this feature as soon as
> that's not your primary purpose, that would be handy.
>>> I mean, if a.o was produced from a.cpp, will a.o be rebuild if:
>>> 1. a.cpp time changes, while content does not.
> How hard would it be to make Hammer compute MD5 signature of a.cpp
> content and use *that* to decide if update is necessary.
Hm. Don't know right now. Checker is separate part and has 150 LOC, so I
think it is not to hard to implement another one. But I am curious why
to use MD5 for that? I saw SCons do that, but don't get it why. Why use
all this cryptographic and not relay on timestamp? Is there a *real*
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