Boost logo

Boost-Build :

Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Language specific include paths
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-14 16:18:00


On 02/14/2018 09:02 AM, Daniel James via Boost-build wrote:
> On 14 February 2018 at 15:40, Steven Watanabe via Boost-build
> <boost-build_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 02/14/2018 06:23 AM, Daniel James via Boost-build wrote:
>>> When building quickbook in boost, there's an include path to boost
>>> root. I think that's because the 'project' in Jamroot has
>>> 'requirements <include>.' which gets picked up by quickbook. This
>>> isn't really a problem here as there aren't many quickbook files
>>> hanging around in boost root, but it's not ideal. So is it possible to
>>> make the include requirement only apply to C/C++ builds?
>> That's what <include> ought to mean in the first place.
> Maybe it should have, but that horse bolted long ago.

  That's its documented behavior as well.
"include: Specifies an additional include path that is to be passed to C
and C++ compilers. "

>>> I think it's
>>> a bit late to change the quickbook toolset so that it doesn't use
>>> <include>,
>> Sorry, but that's the only reasonable fix.
>> If you insist on using <include>, then you
>> will get C/C++ include paths from various
>> sources (including the command line and library
>> usage-requirements)
> I don't use <include>, let alone insist on it.

  Then do you have any complaints if I nuke the
use of include and replace it with a separate feature?

> This is entirely due to
> boost build's design.

  It's only the quickbook toolset that's a problem.
Abusing include is just plain wrong.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at