From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-30 05:46:14
On Jul 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Now that I read your description of history, it seems to be just an
>>> artifact of your unwillingness to use Rene's fix.
>>
>> Lets make simple, just fix bjam so that one can use the DEPENDS
>> clause to
>> condition the invocation of one test upon the successful completion of
>> another test. Thats the way I would expect the DEPENDS clause to
>> work from
>> looking at the bjam documentation. I never suggested it before
>> because I
>> assumed that the problem would solve itself with bjam v2. But that's
>> not
>> here yet.
>
> I could certainly add something, like DEPENDS, that makes it seem easy.
> As long as Doug approves me messing with the build system at this time.
We shouldn't be changing the build system at this time. If there's a
way to fix the serialization test ordering in the serialization
Jamfile, we should do that. Otherwise, the tests should be fixed,
marked-up, or removed: they make the library look less functional that
it is.
> The changes where deeper than that. They involved changing the the
> functionality of BBv1 itself. The changes I posted for this worked only
> as far as user level building went. But they break testing building.
> Doug said to not pursue spending time on that avenue, so I didn't. Yes
> it is considerably easier to account for that particular issue on the
> project Jamfiles. So I'd say check in your changes.
'tis not worth spending time on BBv1 for compilers that aren't release
platforms.
Doug