From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 21:14:52
----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Yap" <yap_noel_at_[hidden]>
> So this is a process problem. If there existed boxes
> where nightly builds occured before things are labeled
> "stable", this problem wouldn't occur.
That's not all it takes, but it would help. We are trying to develop a
more reliable release process, but unfortunately haven't released
anything since 1.27, which IMO was one of our worst releases.
> In any case, all of boost is now dependent on Python
> since at least one part of it depends on Python.
That's just false.
> If things were distributed separately, only Boost.Python
> would be dependent on Python. Those that don't have
> Python will either install Python, or not install
You don't need a separate distribution to get that. The current CVS
state skips building the Python library if Python isn't installed or
> > aam doesn't insure you can "build OOTB". For
> > instance, aam couldn't cause
> > Boost.Python to compile for you if you don't have
> > the required python
> > installation. At best it reduces a number of error
> > messages to a single
> > one.
> I think aam could check for this dependency and spit
> out a friendly error message. If Boost.Python were
> distributed separately, only its build would require
Probably. OTOH, that's the way Boost.Build works today.
> > Please read past threads on this topic. aam is
> > *not* standard for anything
> > but POSIX environments. In any event, the Boost
> > membership has stated again
> > and again that they'd welcome an aam contribution,
> > but we can *NOT* mandate
> > aam as a requirement for our libraries.
> This sort of contribution would be easier satisfied if
> the libraries were separately distributed.
Why don't you figure out how to do that, create separate distributions,
and post some kind of example for us with instructions for library
developers to keep these separate distributions in good health? Then we
can evaluate your claim.
> > Again, search the archives for this information.
> Unfortunately, there's a low signal-to-noise ratio in
> the archives. I don't want to rehash the arguments of
> aam vs Jam, but I do think separating out the dists
> would ease the debate.
I don't see how starting a new debate about separating the libraries
does anything to raise the signal to noise ratio. It seems to me this
sort of thing is characteristic of the noisy bits. If you think you can
improve things, go for it, but please don't waste bandwidth arguing with
the status quo.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk