[BBv1->v2] Attention Library Authors
Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present). Also, please peruse the list below. Lines beginning with +: only has Jamfile.v2 Lines beginning with -: only has Jamfile The lines beginning with - are of the most immediate concern - they indicate a directory where we may need to make the Jamfile compatible with BBv2. Thank you. --- /tmp/v1 2006-12-13 22:10:48.207153151 -0500 +++ /tmp/v2 2006-12-13 22:09:59.240048357 -0500 -./libs/algorithm/minmax/example +./doc -./libs/algorithm/string/example +./libs/algorithm/string/doc -./libs/asio/example/allocation -./libs/asio/example/buffers -./libs/asio/example/chat -./libs/asio/example/echo -./libs/asio/example/http/client -./libs/asio/example/http/server -./libs/asio/example/iostreams -./libs/asio/example/multicast -./libs/asio/example/serialization -./libs/asio/example/services -./libs/asio/example/ssl -./libs/asio/example/timeouts -./libs/asio/example/timers -./libs/asio/example/tutorial +./libs/concept_check/doc -./libs/config/tools -./libs/date_time/example +./libs/date_time/example/gregorian +./libs/date_time/example/posix_time -./libs/disjoint_sets +./libs/date_time/xmldoc -./libs/dynamic_bitset/example +./libs/foreach/doc -./libs/format -./libs/format/benchmark -./libs/format/example +./libs/function/doc +./libs/functional/hash/doc +./libs/fusion/doc +./libs/fusion/example/extension +./libs/fusion/example/performance +./libs/fusion/test -./libs/graph/build/python -./libs/graph/example -./libs/interprocess/example +./libs/interprocess/doc +./libs/interprocess/doc/code +./libs/interprocess/test -./libs/iterator/example +./libs/iterator/doc -./libs/lambda/test +./libs/lambda/doc +./libs/logic/doc +./libs/math/doc -./libs/mpl/example -./libs/mpl/test/aux_ +./libs/multi_index/example +./libs/multi_index/perf +./libs/multi_index/test +./libs/numeric/ublas/test/manual +./libs/parallel/build +./libs/parallel/doc +./libs/parallel/test +./libs/parameter/doc +./libs/program_options/doc +./libs/ptr_container/doc -./libs/python/doc +./libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc -./libs/regex/performance -./libs/regex/test/auto-link-test -./libs/serialization/example -./libs/signals/example +./libs/signals/doc -./libs/spirit/example -./libs/spirit/phoenix/example -./libs/spirit/phoenix/test +./libs/statechart +./libs/static_assert/doc +./libs/test -./libs/test/example/cla -./libs/test/example/cla/validation -./libs/test/example/env -./libs/test/example/env/validation -./libs/test/test/auto-link-test +./libs/thread/doc -./libs/thread/tutorial +./libs/tr1/doc -./libs/tuple/test +./libs/type_traits/doc +./libs/typeof/doc +./libs/variant/doc +./libs/wave/samples +./libs/xpressive/doc +./libs/xpressive/perf +./more +./more/getting_started +./more/whos_using +./tools +./tools/boostbook/doc +./tools/quickbook +./tools/quickbook/doc +./tools/quickbook/test +./tools/regression/test/test-boost-build/missing_dependencies +./tools/regression/test/test-boost-build/missing_dependencies/lib -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present).
I'm not sure I understand. Do you want "Jamfile.v2" files to be renamed to "Jamfile"? If not, then I did it incorrectly with fusion and I'll need to revert. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present).
I'm not sure I understand. Do you want "Jamfile.v2" files to be renamed to "Jamfile"?
You can, but it's not necessary. BBv2 still works with Jamfile.v2, and renaming files while preserving revision history doesn't work so well with CVS. I intended to wait for SVN before we do that renaming.
If not, then I did it incorrectly with fusion and I'll need to revert.
I think what you did was OK. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
You can, but it's not necessary. BBv2 still works with Jamfile.v2, and renaming files while preserving revision history doesn't work so well with CVS. I intended to wait for SVN before we do that renaming.
Altough not directly related to your call for attention: Is the --v2 parameter still necessary? Yes/No? In HEAD? In RC_1_34_0? Roland
Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz@chello.at> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
You can, but it's not necessary. BBv2 still works with Jamfile.v2, and renaming files while preserving revision history doesn't work so well with CVS. I intended to wait for SVN before we do that renaming.
Altough not directly related to your call for attention: Is the --v2 parameter still necessary? Yes/No? In HEAD? In RC_1_34_0?
No, nowhere. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present).
Also, please peruse the list below.
Lines beginning with +: only has Jamfile.v2 Lines beginning with -: only has Jamfile
The lines beginning with - are of the most immediate concern - they indicate a directory where we may need to make the Jamfile compatible with BBv2.
Please be clear on what to do with + and -; e.g. if it's a -, do we add a Jamfile.v2 and remove the old Jamfile? If it's a +, then what should we do? Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present).
Also, please peruse the list below.
Lines beginning with +: only has Jamfile.v2 Lines beginning with -: only has Jamfile
The lines beginning with - are of the most immediate concern - they indicate a directory where we may need to make the Jamfile compatible with BBv2.
Please be clear on what to do with + and -; e.g. if it's a -, do we add a Jamfile.v2 and remove the old Jamfile? If it's a +, then what should we do?
If you successfully complete the initial request to clear out your BBv1 Jamfiles, you don't need to think about this. The "-" indicators are only hints to look for trouble spots. As you know, BBv2 works with either name. In places where only Jamfile.v2 is present (+) there is obviously no problem, since BBv1 is gone. BBv2 gives priority to Jamfile.v2, so in places where both names are present there is no immediate problem either (though I'd like the old Jamfile deleted in that case). In places where only Jamfile is present (-), it could be a BBv1-compatible Jamfile, and that would be a problem, because it can break the BBv2 build process when invoked from ancestor or descendant directories. Does that help? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Joel de Guzman <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Please clear out your old BBv1 Jamfiles from HEAD. We found a problem where BBv2 was picking up an old Jamfile that was only designed to work with BBv1 (the name Jamfile.v2 is just a transitional measure, so BBv2 will find Jamfile if no Jamfile.v2 is present).
Also, please peruse the list below.
Lines beginning with +: only has Jamfile.v2 Lines beginning with -: only has Jamfile
The lines beginning with - are of the most immediate concern - they indicate a directory where we may need to make the Jamfile compatible with BBv2. Please be clear on what to do with + and -; e.g. if it's a -, do we add a Jamfile.v2 and remove the old Jamfile? If it's a +,
David Abrahams wrote: then what should we do?
If you successfully complete the initial request to clear out your BBv1 Jamfiles, you don't need to think about this.
The "-" indicators are only hints to look for trouble spots. As you know, BBv2 works with either name. In places where only Jamfile.v2 is present (+) there is obviously no problem, since BBv1 is gone. BBv2 gives priority to Jamfile.v2, so in places where both names are present there is no immediate problem either (though I'd like the old Jamfile deleted in that case). In places where only Jamfile is present (-), it could be a BBv1-compatible Jamfile, and that would be a problem, because it can break the BBv2 build process when invoked from ancestor or descendant directories.
Does that help?
Yes, perfectly, thanks! Ok, on to some more maintenance later today. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
participants (3)
-
David Abrahams -
Joel de Guzman -
Roland Schwarz