Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-26 15:45:51

On 11/25/06 5:47 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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"
>>>> function.
>>> 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.

I don't think Boost, are any part of it, should _require_ an install
procedure. It should be possible for any user to just take the actual
header and source files and use any build system s/he has.

>> I don't see directions to set up Boost.Python manually, when
>> none of the given methods are possible.
> Right.
>> 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.

For the Python-specific directions or the general ones (or both)? If just
the Python-specific ones, the general page could have a note about the
situation with Boost.Python.

For Boost.Python, what does happen if the user has a setup incompatible with
the given directions? Give up? Guess what to do? Petition for help on our
mailing lists?

Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at