Re: [jamboost] Re: Boost.Jam release?

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-13 10:08:47

[2003-10-13] Vladimir Prus wrote:

>David Abrahams wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > There's one question: I would be interested to know if the problem that
>> > Dave reported in email called "dependency analysis bug" is cleared or
>> > not. But I don't think it's show-stopper.
>>
>> IIRC, you diagnosed my report as a non-bug (the #include of the
>> dependent file was masked by PP directives). Then you found other
>> problems, which I suppose you could check yourself(?)
>
>I've originally diagnosed the problem as non-bug, that's true. However,
later 
>I've found out a long dependency chain from is_class_test.cpp to
is_class.hpp 
>via Boost.Test, which means that both is_class_test.cpp and Boost.Test
should 
>be recompiled when you change is_class.hpp is touched. That happens to me, 
>however, I'm not sure if this happens to you. 
>
>IIRC, the symptoms of the original problems were somewhat different for me: 
>you had no recompiles at all, while I had only some files recompiled.
That's 
>why there's a chance the bug still exists for you.

Well given that issue wont get resolved soon... I'll go ahead with the
release tonight (tomorrow morning for Volodya).

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq