On Jul 29, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
Now that I read your description of history, it seems to be just an artifact of your unwillingness to use Rene's fix.
Lets make simple, just fix bjam so that one can use the DEPENDS clause to condition the invocation of one test upon the successful completion of another test. Thats the way I would expect the DEPENDS clause to work from looking at the bjam documentation. I never suggested it before because I assumed that the problem would solve itself with bjam v2. But that's not here yet.
I could certainly add something, like DEPENDS, that makes it seem easy. As long as Doug approves me messing with the build system at this time.
We shouldn't be changing the build system at this time. If there's a way to fix the serialization test ordering in the serialization Jamfile, we should do that. Otherwise, the tests should be fixed, marked-up, or removed: they make the library look less functional that it is.
The changes where deeper than that. They involved changing the the functionality of BBv1 itself. The changes I posted for this worked only as far as user level building went. But they break testing building. Doug said to not pursue spending time on that avenue, so I didn't. Yes it is considerably easier to account for that particular issue on the project Jamfiles. So I'd say check in your changes.
'tis not worth spending time on BBv1 for compilers that aren't release platforms. Doug