Re: [jamboost] Install directories

From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-29 09:49:44

[2003-08-29] John Maddock wrote:

>Rene,
>
>I'm still playing with your revised install code, and I think that by and
>large I'm getting to like it :-)
>
>Still a few more points though:
>
>I'm pretty happy with the "stage" target as an alternative to install, but
I
>wish it was called something else - "binaries" is still my favourite, but
>you've already listed the other options, and as ever finding a good name is
>hard.

Yea, names are very hard to come by. "stage" has the benifit that it maps to
the stage rule so people will make the connection and hopefully understand
what it does faster. -- But that could be wishfull thinking on my part ;-)

>I think I can live with the headers going in "versioned" sub-directories,
>one of the things I'm keen on is that an installed boost can be discovered
>by an autoconf script, and I think this is the case here.
>
>I'm still not happy about the libraries going in $prefix/lib/something/ for
>the following reasons:
>
>1) The "something" doesn't add anything, this is already an architecture
>specific directory, so putting files in "x86-linux" for example adds
>nothing. Some libraries do seem to install themselves in
>$prefix/lib/libname/ (for example kde seems to do that, but I haven't dug
>into the sources to verify that it's a kde thing,and not just the way Red
>Hat have packaged it). I don't think this adds anything in our case
either,
>since all our libraries have a "boost_" prefix anyway.
>2) The sub-directory name can't be discovered by autoconf as far as I can
>see - as it stands the name is very much a "Jam'ism", and doesn't relate to
>uname or anything else as far as I can see.
>3) The libraries won't be in the users LD_LIBRARY_PATH: clearly there are
>workarounds for this - like starting boost-dependent programs via a shell
>script that sets the necessary variables, but this is another hurdle for
>already hassled programmers to overcome (and an added complication for
>installation scripts - the user wouldn't be able to just use automake
>without jumping through hoops).

All good reasons! ... For a regular User.

The x86-linux does add something in one case... If you are doing
cross-compiles, you don't want libraries you generate to colide with your
current libraries. But I grant you that's a corner case.

So I'll remove the subdir..

>p.s. If you just want me to shut up about this, just say so... ! :-)

No please keep talking, without feedback it would progress even slower than
it currently is ;-)

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq