Re: [jamboost] Re: Solaris jam build

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-07 13:36:02

On 2002-05-07 at 12:43 PM, david.abrahams_at_[hidden] (David Abrahams) wrote:

>
>"cs_jritchie" <cs_jritchie_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>news:ab8vuh+uves_at_eGroups.com...
>> I am receiving the following on a Solaris system when using:
>>
>> jam -sBOOST_ROOT=. -sTOOLS=gcc
>>
>>
>> status/Jamfile:53: in failed-test-file
>> warning: unknown rule FAIL_EXPECTED
>> status/Jamfile:100: in fail-to-build
>> ./tools/build/boost-base.jam:1407: in subvariant-target
>> ./tools/build/boost-base.jam:1448: in main-target
>> ./tools/build/boost-base.jam:1065: in declare-local-target
>> status/Jamfile:35: in boost-test
>> status/Jamfile:119: in compile-fail
>> status/Jamfile:368: in SubInclude
>> ./tools/build/allyourbase.jam:1141: in subinclude
>> Jamfile:5: in module scope
>>
>> {...above repeated many times...}
>>
>> Unable to load Boost.Build, it seems that the build system files were
>> located, but the build system is not defined. Attempted to use, as
>> the bootstrap, this file: ./tools/build/boost-build.jam. This means
>> that even though that file was loaded it either failed to directly
>> load the build system files, or it failed to specify where to find
>> and load the files by calling the 'build-system [path] ;' rule.
>> Please consult the documentation at 'http://www.boost.org'.
>>
>> What am I doing wrong? Any help is appreciated.
>
>[please post any follow-ups to jamboost_at_[hidden]]
>
>It looks to me as though you're trying to use a new version of Jam on an
>older Boost CVS state.
>We removed the FAIL_EXPECTED rule from the core Jam when it was proved to
be
>unneeded, sometime after the release of 1.27. However, I can see that it
>might be a mistake to break backward compatibility in this way. Opinions?

I think we should put it back. I don't mind having mutliple versions of Jam
installed (I have 5 so far) but users won't know this and they might still
wan't to compile their older programs that might be using the older Boost
versions.

After all you just spent a considerable amount of time changing the load
behaviour to be backward compatible. Just to have it thwarted by the missing
FAIL_EXPECTED ;-)

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]