Beman Dawes wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM, troy d. straszheim > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > David Abrahams wrote: > > Beman Dawes wrote: > > > I thought cmake was supposed to be robust. This is very > discouraging; it > implies cmake developers are only targeting folks who are > cmake experts. > > Is it possible to disable this misfeature? > > > I think Troy is saying that we get to control what gets cached, > and as > our system gets more refined, we'll figure out what to cache and > what > not to. > > > Yeah. Don't panic. > > > OK, I'll try not to:-) > > > > IIUC this is really the same model as autoconf and that has the same > issue, but it's not a big problem for people... it's just that it's > well-known how to blow away an autoconf cache. > > > Yeah. > > > One of the lessons we have learned with regression testers is that there > may be no people present. The scripts have to recover from errors > without intervention of people. And adding that level of robustness > really helps with users, too. Things "just work", and that saves endless > trouble for users and those who support users.
We could probably introduce a "cmake; then if that fails, blow away the cache and try one more time" sequence into the testing scripts. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
