From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-16 06:59:26
>My experience in this regard was with STLport, which I intended to just
>use, but I ended up having to put on the developer hat a little bit in the
>version 4 beta days, which meant experimenting with code changes so I
>could submit meaningful bug reports. It was nice to have the simplicity
>of a single copy of the files to work with.
Agreed 100%: KISS again.
>The other things you mention, like having a single
>source tree allow compilation for multiple platforms are good ideas, but
>don't seem to hinge on a "make install" scenario that copies source files.
>All that is needed is a make process that has differing destination
>directories for each platform, and a way for each compiler to see the
>headers and libraries. Copying isn't required here, since symlinks and
>environment variables can do the job.
Also agreed 100%
>An example of existing practice in the Windows world is Microsoft's
>Platform SDK. It installs completely in its own directory, without
>touching the compiler's directory structure. Include paths are used to
>hook into header. The same goes for STLport. This scheme used by these
>tools provide some benefits: Allows SDK to be used by multiple
>languages/compilers; easy to uninstall; easier to see what to blame when
>something doesn't work.
And again 100%.
At the risk of excessive repetition: KISS.
Or to put it another way, no mandatory install step please - it really
messes up development work.
One other point that came across from a point made by Beman in a private
email on another subject - some commertial users will simply not use boost
if it relies on any tools not installed by default on the target platform -
that means no python among other things - sorry :-(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk