Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
On 11/25/06 5:47 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker <darylew@hotmail.com> writes:
On 11/22/06 11:15 PM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> 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.
Great, you can work towards establishing that as a supported method for 1.35
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