From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-30 12:58:15
Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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"
>>>> 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.
Great, you can work towards establishing that as a supported method
>>> 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.
Neither, because I can't stand behind them working.
> 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?
Any of those could be appropriate.
-- 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