Re: [boost] [Serialization] Major regressions on RC_1_33_0

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.

Robert Ramey