From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-24 15:18:59
At 02:23 PM 7/24/2002, Jeff Garland wrote:
>> No, build/Jamfile should only build the library (If one exist)
>> example/Jamfile should build examples
>> test/Jamfile should build tests
>That makes sense.
>> > no Jam expert here, but I presume in that structure the
>> > /build (library Jamfile) will have to be included in the
>> > /test Jamfile to ensure the library is built?
>> no. I just mention ../build/<lib-name> as a source for your test
>> > That can be done, but then the structure is a bit inconsistent. If
>> > do this then for consistency I would want:
>> > libs/gdtl/examples/gregorian
>> > examples/posix_time
>> > libs/gdtl/src/gregorian
>> > src/posix_time
>> building/testing/documenting and *examples*
>> > So we decided to be at least self-consistent....
>> I don't no. I still would prefer t obe able just to go into <lib>/test
>> type bjam and it should test everything.
>That's fine, it is easier to convert now rather than later....
Be careful. The current test setup using Boost.Build V1 has a terrible time
being able to communicate results when the target directory is in a
different tree from ../status/bin/... That's why some test results are
just "Missing" now.
That being said, I very much agree that we should refactor the test
Jamfiles, more or less along the lines being discussed.
But we might want to hold off actual implementation until Boost.Build V2.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk