[boost] Re: Re: Boost to the rescue

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-18 14:22:09

Hi,

I do not have time to read through this thread completely, but here couple 
notes:

1. There is no sense IMO comparing bjam with autoconfig. It's apples and 
oranges. bjam is make substitution. The only advantage of make is that it's 
already present in most systems. We chose bjam over make for reasons (look 
into bjam docs for some them) that included better flexibility, portability 
and expression power.
2. Boost..Build could be considered as a counterpart to autoconfig. These 
two follow different ideology: Boost.Build present precreated configuration 
files (tools definition) while autoconfig allows to generate these from some 
source pattern based on system characteristics. I personally prefer 
preexistent files if it possible.
3. I personally don't see what this "installation fuss" is all about. in 
majority of the cases the whole installation is: "pkzip -d boost.zip" or 
similar. Providers of "packages" could do whatever they want and add build 
steps. This is a bit oversimplification. but I do not see need for better 
installation (whatever this means) as a showstopper in any form.

Regards,

Gennadiy