Re: [boost] [1.33.0] Final release schedule

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-29 13:12:39

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> These particular ones are due to the fact that I've never been able
>> to force the order of tests with bjam.  Those tests attempt to load
>> archives which haven't been created yet.  If one doesn'st clean out
>> the $TMPDIR, these errors don't occur the next time.
>
> I can't believe I'm only hearing about this now.  Did I miss your
> request for help with this problem on the jamboost list?

Oh yeah - there were quite a few emails regarding trying to get bjam to do 
what I needed it to do.  Fixing the order of the save/load tests was just 
one issue.  Others were

a) skipping tests depending on wide characters for libraries that didn't 
support them.
b) skipping tests which depended on installation of spirt 1.6x for compilers 
which don't support spirit 1.8x
c) forcing tests with certain compilers which implemented locales in only 
static libraries
d) skipping tests for compilers which can't properly build a DLL

With much help from Rene, these all got sorted out - (Though not without 
bringing the whole test system to its knees at lease once.

Rene did submit a Jamfile patch to address the final problem.  It was 
totally opaque to me in that it depended upon internal behavior of bjam.  I 
really had spent a lot of time with bjam and was concerned that including 
this might interact with all the issues resolved above in a way that I could 
never figure out.  That is, I felt the cure was worse than the desease.  So 
I left out this last change for the sake of transparency.  I did leave in 
"Depends" clauses to document the requirement that the save test be run 
after the corresponding load test.  This doesn't work but it does document 
my intention.

>
>> Using the markup to indicate - fails sometimes resulted in a
>> misleading marking of the passing tests (If I remember correctly) so
>> I just had to leave it.  That is, the "fail" are really artifacts of
>> the bjam implementation.
>
> Seems to me it's an artifact of the fact that you didn't figure out
> how to make it do what you want.

LOL

Robert Ramey