Subject: Re: [boost] [release] Python 3 build problems
From: Tom Kent (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-04-20 09:53:34
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2015 1:27 PM, "Stefan Seefeld" <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 17/04/15 02:22 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> > > On Apr 17, 2015 1:03 PM, "Stefan Seefeld" <stefan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> PS: It's a pitty that none of the test builders indicate what Python
> > >> version they are running with. That would have been valuable
> > >> for Boost.Python tests.
> > > If it's important you should add an informational test that shows the
> > > Python version being tested.
> > While that might work, it seems a bit hackish to me. It seems the Python
> > version (as well as a number of other config parameters) are valuable
> > metadata associated with a given build that would be useful to display,
> > alongside the compiler name / version in use.
> It's actually the less hackish way. As it handles the eventuality that the
> version of Python that the tools are using will be different than the one
> being tested for BPL. And would also account for multiple versions being
> tested in the same b2 run.
I'd agree with this, if we can make it part of the test.
However, it might be nice to include some more information automatically in
the comment html file, just like we do with the command that is executed.
For debugging purposes it might be nice to see: contents of the
user-config.jam file, version of python that run.py is executed with,
actual version of the toolsets being used (can we get this from bjam?).
I know when I was getting my runners first setup, I had tons of problems
with my user-config.jam file (and still do from time to time), and if
others could have seen that in my test setup and mentioned it to me, things
could have been running more smoothly much sooner.