Boost Testing :
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-23 06:38:25
David Abrahams writes:
>>> If not, either the command line is wrong, or something in
>>> bjam is broken.
> The command line is wrong. You're using Unix-style path separators (":")
> instead of windows-style (";") in setting up BOOST_BUILD_PATH.
We are not, though! There is nothing to separate because we pass it a
single path (which is determined as "os.path.abspath( os.path.dirname(
sys.argv ) )"). What's the exact command line you are seeing?
> I'd try to fix it myself, but I honestly don't know how multiple path
> elements get into the bjam command line,
Neither do I, yet.
> from looking at the code:
> def bjam_command( toolsets ):
> build_path = regression_root
> if build_path[-1] == '\\': build_path += '\\'
> result = '"%s" "-sBOOST_BUILD_PATH=%s" "-sBOOST_ROOT=%s"'\
> % (
> tool_path( bjam )
> , build_path
> , boost_root
> Unless regression_root is somehow a list of paths(?)...
No, it's not, see the very top of the script.
>> It's just a slightly surprising design decision from my POV because I
>> always have an image of Boost lying around. The "obvious" interface
>> would have be doing cd $(TEMP) followed by python
> Also, let me point out, there isn't much precedent for the location of
> the script being a factor unless it's part of a larger package and
> needs to find its brethren.
FWIW, it does, but we are looking into breaking that dependency.
> There's nothing *wrong* with the current
> behavior per-se, but well, my expectations were for something
> different, and I got it wrong the first few times. Just an
> ease-of-use datapoint.
Thanks for sharing it!
-- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering