[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 15:43:35

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uvf55q4ni.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:usm0aujbq.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> >   Mhmm. Do I need this? Will it even work without
>>>>> >   Python? (I know it will. But not from the guide.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well the message you *actually* get is:
>>>>>
>>>>>    skipping Boost.Python library build due to _missing_ _or_
>>>>>    _incorrect_ configuration
>>>>   (which I wasn't interested in.) Others don't.
>>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand all that.  Let me ask again:
>>>
>>>  So if that is insufficient to make it clear that the build will will
>>>  work even without Python, what do we need to do in order to make it
>>>  clear?
>>
>> I've no idea if this is doable. Display a summary with three sections:
>> Successful, Skipped and Failed. Entries under the Failed heading could 
>> have
>> a short description of the problem if possible.
>
> If we skip Boost.Python we *do* need to tell people what they need to
> set up in order to not get it to be skipped.  Maybe you don't care,
> but I do.  I was the one fielding all the "Can't build Boost.Python"
> questions before I had that big message.

The summary could be after the existing output(including the current 
Boost.Python warning). It would give equal prominence to all three 
categories. One could then scroll up to see the specifics.

Jeff Flinn