From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 16:20:44
David Abrahams wrote:
> Allen Bierbaum <allenb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Allen Bierbaum <allenb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> So I guess the question would be, is there interest from the boost
>> admins in accepting an rpm spec file (based on Patrick and Neal's work)
>> and making it the recommended way for packagers to build boost. Or said
>> another way, is there interest in putting the boost seal of approval on
>> packaging and installation methods?
> I am interested.
>> If there is interest, what are the next steps for getting an rpm
>> spec file accepted?
> Post it along with an explanation of what it does and rationale for
> your choices, I guess.
Another, but related, question would be whether that could be abstracted
a little along these lines:
* how much of the info can be extracted from the build system automatically ?
* what (meta)data needs to be added by developers manually ?
* can the same process be repeated for other packagers, such as deb or msi ?
If that's possible, may be packaging could be a new boost.build feature ?
I guess these questions are more relevant to the boost.build ML, so I'm Cc'ing them
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk