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.
[SNIP]
>> 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