From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-02 18:25:13
At 05:25 PM 5/2/2002, William E. Kempf wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Noel Yap"
>> I really think such requirements need to be
>> documented, especially for this project.
>Granted. Maybe you can document them as you wade through the
>can update them after that.
Many of the requirements for installation procedures are very similar to
the build system requirements listed at
>... The problem is that the
>dependencies sometimes are either internal or external (i.e. they're
>by either the interface or the implementation) which can impact what's
>required for distribution. More over, the dependencies can change on a
>(especially when they are internal dependencies). Considering the goals
>Boost I don't think we can expect any more out of the developers then
>documenting and/or e-mail dependency changes to someone. We can't expect
>them to change any distribution procedures/scripts that occur because of
>these changes. (That is, other then changing any Jamfiles if required by
My own guess is that developers are so focused on other issues, that they
really aren't the right people to document dependencies. That was the
point of the automatic dependency checking program that generates the
Even the simple file that drives that program isn't well maintained. We
need a totally automated way to generate dependency information, IMO.
There really isn't any point in me making detailed comments on Bill's
message; he understands the issues well and I'll just say I support his
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk