On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
Glen Fernandes wrote:
It would be nice if both approaches (static configuration, automatic identification) take into account - or allow you to specify - conditional dependencies (e.g. dependencies based on identification of supported or unsupported features determined by Boost.Config).
In my reply to Robert Ramey just now I mentioned the possibility to use Boost.Bjam's <toolset> to handle this. There might be other ways as well. Given that it is probably feasible to account for this, would you vote in favour of what I propose?
If the result is tooling that can address the following: - Developer can conveniently express "I care about Boost libraries L1, L2, L3 for compilers C1, C2, C3" and the tooling replies with: "Get L1, L2, L3, L9, L18, L27". - If the developer instead expresses "I care about Boost libraries L1, L2, L3 but only for compiler C1" and the tooling replies with: "Get L1, L2, L3, L9". Then sure: I think that would be useful to have. (Whether it is implemented by adopting either of the two approaches). Glen