Re: bjam patch to provide necessary info for process_jam_log

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-04 19:10:57

David Abrahams writes:
> "Aleksey Gurtovoy" <alexy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> To elaborate -- currently bjam doesn't output failed/skipped targets that 
>> don't have associated actions. In cases when this happens, it makes the 
>> task of using bjam log to reengineer the dependency chain (the task of 
>> "process_jam_log" executable) impossible. A particular instance of this
>> situation can be observed in the current Boost.Python tests.
>
> I don't understand why a core bjam change was neccessary. Seems to
> me you could just add an empty action for the rule in question.
>
> No?

And who is going to track this down next time somebody adds a similar
rule to their bjam file?

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering