Re: bjam patch to provide necessary info for process_jam_log

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-10 07:50:02

Aleksey Gurtovoy writes:
> 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?

To make it clear: I'm not insisting that the problem should be fixed
this particular way. What I'm strongly opposite to is rejecting a
possibly correct, at large, fix on the basis that a local workaround
for one particular instance of the problem is possible. We've spent a
considerable enough amount of time getting to the roots of the issue
to feel that it should be fixed once and forever.

I'd accept the fact that nobody has enough expertise in the core to be
able to say whether the proposed change would break anything or to
explain what was the motivation behind the original logic in the
first place. I really hope that it's not the case, though.

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering