From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-24 13:06:56
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <rogeeff_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:16 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: Beta posted for new regression tests
> > > $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs/.../test/Jamfile
> > >
> > > How's that?
> > If you mean $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs/**/test/Jamfile where '**' means any
> > directory sub-tree (stolen from Ant syntax), then yeah, that looks good
> What subtree did you mean? Is it different from library name?
Possibly, yes. For instance, see the post about GDTL library.
> > me. This would be something that would match the (informal?) directory
> > structure we've discussed for Boost time and again.
> > Bill Kempf
> FWIW, we should look for:
> 1. $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs/<lib-name>/test/Jamfile
> if is missing (for odl pre-convention libs like any)
Why make the tools do this? Convert the libraries instead.
> 2. $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs/<lib-name>/Jamfile
> This Jamfile may define all test targets itself or it could include other
> Jamfiles. For example for gdtl
> $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs/gdtl/test/Jamfile should include
> $(BOOST_ROOT)/libs/gdtl/gregorian/test/Jamfile and
> In general we should strive to keep all testing under <lib-name>/test
> subdirectory; all build rules under <lib-name>/build all docs under
> <lib-name>/docs. IOW I would prefer if gdtl testing structure would look
> Even if library subcomponent are completely independent I would prefer
> stick to per-library based building/testing/documenting and so on.
I won't argue against this reasoning. I think it can suffice to look just
for .../libs/proj/test/Jamfile. I was only commenting on what Dave said,
not making an overall recommendation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk