From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-10 10:22:58
John Maddock wrote:
> So.... if there is a change in the library the *test* may not get
> rebuilt. Robert is that a fair characterisation of the problem?
That seems right to me
> I don't see any easy solution to this, unless a DEPENDS clause can be
> added at the same time as the "run" clause gets added to the tests
> (inside another rule that is). Rene would that be possible? Any
> chance you could look at the Jamfile and figure out how at least one
> of the DEPENDS clauses should look so the rest of us mortals could
> take it from there?
Actually, Rene did this for me sometime ago but it was absolutely
un-understandable to me. It depended on internal, low-level implementation
behavior of bjam and I couldn't fathom how and why it worked. As part of
this effort I augmented the Jamfile to skip tests which were appropriate in
the given environment (e.g. lack of support for spirit, wide chars, etc).
So I didn't think I could get all this working and have something I could
maintain without constantly bugging other people to help.
I hadn't dwelled on this issue because it didn't bother me all that much and
I've always assumed that bjam v2 was on the horizon. I also hoped that it
would address in an obvious and transparent way the problem of sequencing
certain tests - perhaps by permitting one to designate the intermediate file
as a test target.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk