Re: [boost] [serialization] Fix Jamfile

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-19 13:59:13

> Say library A depends on serialization. Serialization itself depends
> on config/whatever. Then, if config/whatever fails, the serialization
> build
> will fail. Then, in turn, will cause library A build to fail.
> So, no test for library A will run, either.

Correct - that is as it should be.  If A depends on serializaiton
and serialization depends upon config/whatever, and config/whatever
fails, then there is no point in running/testing serialization nor
anything that depends upon it.  That's what "dependency"
means.

> Can you, in light of above, clarify exactly will target will
> be build when it should not be built?

To repeat.  in this example, building A would be a mistake
as it depends on something that is known not to work.
Building A under these circumstances is at best a waste of
resources and at worst very missleading.

> Hmm, a commit that fails because a post-commit hook rejects commit
> should
> not require any of this. I also find it hard to imagine any local
> misconfiguration that might cause this. What are the exact error
> message
> you get from SVN?

I reported one of them on this list when it occurred. There was no
response.  It was complaining about a mime-type.  I tried everything
to address it. Finally I created a new directory and made a new
update then retried the operation (adding a new file) and it worked
fine.

>> Sometimes the checkin reports
>> error but in fact does show up in th SVN browser, etc. On occasion,
>> the check-in is reported as successful on my system but in fact
>> didn't show up on the server (e.g. ../util/test.jam).
>
> This is just impossible. When SVN client reports "Comitted revision
> XXX",
> it means the transaction is done on the server. It cannot disappear
> without some admin work (if if that admin work is done, your local
> copy will broken beyond repair). Or do you mean Trac SVN browser?
> That might in theory introduce some delay, but I never noticed it.

LOL. I'm just reporting what I observed.  Of course, you're free to conclude
that my observations might have been mistaken, but I assure you, I'm not
making this up.  The offending file WAS missing and it was shown on
my local machine with a green checkmark indicating that it was in sync
with the server. - which is why I assumed that it was checked in
which was why the whole problem occurred.

Note that I have an SVN server on my local machine which I use
for my other work on a regular basis (without any problems).
Though I'm not an expert, I'm not a complete noob when it comes to SVN 
usage.

Robert Ramey