From: Zbynek Winkler (zwin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 07:14:06
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the approach you've arrived at is to make feature
> non-optional, and the drawback is that now all targets are built in four
> variants? In other words, it's good to have features specific to a main
> target?
>
> For example:
>
> feature mode : 1 2 3 4
> : link-incompatible ignored-unless-explicitly-made-relevant ;
>
> lib test : test.cpp : <explicitly-relevant-feature>mode
> : : <explicit-relevant-feature>mode ;
>
> exe app : app.cpp test ;
>
> With this setup, 'mode' feature will only affect target which have explicitly
> specified that they care about 'mode'. What do you think? (Note that this
> just an idea, syntax details might be different).
So when I build 'app' - will it have mode set? (Note: for me to be of use it
should and it should be the default value of the feature 'mode') When I issue
'bjam mode=1 app' I'd like 'app' to be built with mode set to 1 and linked
with 'test/<mode>1'. In addition when I do 'bjam mode=1' it should build all
targets but only 'test' and 'app' should have mode set. Is this what you are
suggesting? If so, then it solves my problem ;-)
Zbynek
-- http://zw.matfyz.cz/ http://robotika.cz/ Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic