From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-14 03:07:33
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Vladimir Prus writes:
>>>> Depends what you mean by "going". It's not a planned feature
>>>> yet. And I think it's better to try to make V2 the official build
>>>> system before adding any more features to it. After that, something
>>>> should be possible.
>>> It can hardly become "the official build system" until we can use it
>>> to run regression tests.
>> I'm verifying V2 operation on regression tests *now* and I think
>> it's pretty close. But you're asking about a new feature which is
>> not present in V1, either.
> I wasn't specifically asking for it as a prerequisite for "officially"
> declaring V2 our production build system. I was just pointing out
> that, at the very least, for the latter to happen the regression
> testing has to be switched over to V2. At the moment I have no idea
> what's involved in it. My major concern is this: does V2 guarantee
> exactly the same format of the output ("bjam log") as V1?
Almost. Some of the action names are different, say "gcc.compile.c++" vs.
"gcc-Compile", but there's already code in process_jam_log to handle this.
Of course, I'll further test it.
>> I would say it's more reasonable to switch to V2 first -- from the
>> point of regression testing, that would mean adding --v2 to bjam
>> invocation, and nothing else.
> The V2 toolsets infrastructure is different, and it matters for the
> reports. Other than that, if --v2 play well with process_jam_log, I
> agree with the rest of your post below.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk