On 9/17/07, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
[snip]
Thoughts?
Question 1: Does that mean different Jamfiles are needed for releases vs SVN working copies? That is too error prone - a way would have to be found so that the same Jamfile works regardless of whether it is run against a release or a SVN working copy.
We can have only the SVN directory structure. People can have a complete include directory with bjam install. Which could copy headers from all libraries there.
Question 2: Let's say lib A depends on lib B, and B in turn depends on lib C. Does that mean lib A's Jamfile must list both B and C? If such transitive dependencies have to be listed, that's a problem because if C gets changed to depend on lib D, then the Jamfile for A, B, and C all have to be changed, and that's a mess. OTOH, if only direct dependencies have to be listed in the Jamfile, it might possibly work.
It is transitive. No need to type dependencies of dependencies in the jamfiles.
Question 3: What about developers who use an IDE or traditional make files? For example, using the VC++ IDE, the "Additional Include Directories" property is currently set to $(BOOST_ROOT) and you are done. On IDE's where this sort of property can be inherited, you only have to specify that in one place, and all Boost compiles work correctly. With your scheme it sounds like every library used will require an additional include path, and that path will be different for release compared to SVN working copies. That gets old fast. Or have you figured out a simpler way?
Just type bjam install and use it.
Curious,
--Beman
Best regards, -- Felipe Magno de Almeida