|
|
Boost Interest : |
From: Doug Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-23 22:40:46
Thanks Beman, Niels for the feedback. I'll tweak the installer as best
I can. A few comments inline...
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> * Same problem Niels reported, except worse. I could only see a few pixels
> of the top of capital letters, so would not have even known what was
> happening except that I had read Niels' post.
>
> * Choose components: Date-time: Jeff's email address being truncated. Hum...
> Same problem with some but not all other libraries.
>
> * Choose components: Python - the description gets truncated. Ditto several
> others. Getting a good fit for the text is clearly a problem. Any reason the
> dialog box couldn't be bigger or resizable?
It looks annoyingly hard to do, but I'll figure it out :)
> * Choose components: Would benefit from a "Deselect all", for those who are
> only after one or two libraries.
Okay.
> * It would be helpful to have a choice of 32 or 64 bit libraries. Or is that
> a different installer?
At present, that would be a different installer.
> * Some folks prefer dll linking only. Others think dll's are "the work of
> the devil" and want static linking only. Still others want both. At least
> eventually it would be nice to cater to all these tastes.
Yes, agreed. The BoostPro installer did this pretty well; I'm trying
to map those ideas onto CPack better.
> * The resulting directory structure isn't quite right. IMO, the next level
> under /Program Files/Boost should be "boost_1_36". The level under that
> should be similar to the boost tree as distributed in the zip/bz2/etc files,
> except that there won't be any entries in the boost or libs subtrees for
> omitted libraries.
I don't agree. The include directory within Program Files\Boost is
versioned, as are the installed libraries. Documentation installation
certainly needs to be added (and would also, presumably, be
versioned), but why install the rest? This is a binary installer meant
for users... I guess we could have "Source code" components for each
of the components, perhaps.
- Doug