From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-25 17:47:04
Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 11/22/06 11:15 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> There should be a section on going without pre-made binaries. This should
>>> mention the location of the mandatory source files
>>> ("$BOOST_ROOT/libs/*/src/*.cpp" for now) and that they can be arbitrarily
>>> incorporated as needed, except for the ones that have a "main"
>> I don't believe that's true, though. Certainly I wouldn't guarantee
>> it for Boost.Python; you'd have to know a lot of details about how to
>> configure the build. I'm not going to make guarantees that users can
>> do something that they can't in fact do or anything that we don't test.
> Should that be considered a bug?
Not unless we decide to support it, and nobody has made that decision.
> [Hmm... looking around Boost.Python for the first time at
> The example at
> uses bjam and suggests that it's the preferred way. It links to another
> page at <http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/building.html> with alternate
> methods with either use Boost.Build or a pre-canned file for Visual Studio
> IDE users.
Yeah, which file is probably seriously outdated by now and should be
taken down. I need to check, but I don't think its maintainer has
been keeping it up.
> I don't see directions to set up Boost.Python manually, when
> none of the given methods are possible.
> Maybe manual directions need to be added to the general and
> Boost.Python-specific getting-started pages.
I'm not ready to support that method, sorry.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk