From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-11 14:04:16
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> Hum... I assumed that linking, but without forcing a build if the library
> wasn't there, was doable. But I gather from other postings that this is
> one of those things that will have to wait until version 2.
> I'm sorry. It never occurred to me that jam would not be able to link to
> library that it had built in a prior job step.
Sure it can do that, if you know how point it at the right library object
for each target you're building.
I don't know why you'd want to suppress building the unbuilt library as
part of the test, though. That seems completely backwards and unnatural to
me. The test depends on the library. If I want to run the test, why
shouldn't it try to build the library?
> Does that mean that until version 2 we should not report status on any
> regression test that uses libraries? Or just report "It failed for
> reasons". Depressing.
I don't know. It semes like you're trying to get expedient results without
doing the hard work of thinking about how the system should ultimately
work. As I said in a previous message, we need to understand what the build
system really needs to suport testing well. Until we do that, IMO
everything else is a kind of flailing about with ad-hoc approaches, and
BTW, I don't think things will get much better for testing in v2 either
unless we have this discussion.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk