Richard Hadsell wrote:
Dave Abrahams wrote:
Does that path have a file called pyconfig.h in it? If not, you might need to add something to your user-config or site-config file that gives the correct #include path.
Yes, it does. And Boost 1.41.0 and 1.44.0 built the python library with no problem finding the headers.
error: No best alternative for /python_for_extensions next alternative: required properties: <python>2.5 <target-os>linux matched next alternative: required properties: <python>2.5 <target-os>linux matched error: No best alternative for /python_for_extensions next alternative: required properties: <python>2.5 <target-os>linux matched next alternative: required properties: <python>2.5 <target-os>linux matched
I've never really understood the logic behind Boost.Build's matching of alternatives. I think the messages above are probably innocuous, but they could be a problem (possibly related to https://trac.lvk.cs.msu.su/boost.build/wiki/AlternativeSelection). You should ask about that on the boost.build mailing list. Problem solved.
There was a project-config.jam file in the boost home directory. It was left over from an earlier errant execution of bootstrap.sh (in the home directory). This extra config file confused the configuration process, as evidenced by the second set of [python-cfg] notices and the "No best alternative for /python_for_extensions" messages. Thank you for looking at the problem for me. -- Dick Hadsell 203-992-6320 Fax: 203-992-6001 Reply-to: hadsell@blueskystudios.com Blue Sky Studios http://www.blueskystudios.com 1 American Lane, Greenwich, CT 06831-2560