From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-11 09:25:56
----- Original Message -----
From: "Toon Knapen" <toon.knapen_at_[hidden]>
> > I agree with you completely. I am only unsure of these things:
> > 1. Whether it should be in CVS or available elsewhere (e.g. do we want
> > distribute HP/UX executables to Windows users?)
> > 2. Whether now is the appropriate time to check it in.
> > 3. Where it should go. I'm thinking tools/build/bin/<platform>...
> It would be perfect if the executables for every platform are a seperate
> module in the CVS and thus can be selected by the boost cvs users
> explicitly. But indeed, if it's a subdirectory of the boost project, you
> will get all of them when you checkout boost.
> The root of the problem can also be traced back to the tools directory
> being located inside boost (although there's no other option). When
> using boost.build for my project too, I want to use the exact same tools
> directory. Thus in some way, this tools-directory is not project specific.
> A dirty solution is to put every executable on a different branch.
> Another solution is to offer them on the website.
I vote for the latter.
> The main thing is that we should know how the other users are handling
> jam. Some might know what should be done in the Jam Makefile before
> starting compiling but most won't (and they should'nt).
> So we should know : have most users already installed Jam ? If so, did
> they encounter problems or found it cumbersome, ...
My guess is that everyone who installed it found it at least a little
cumbersome. I have not yet addressed most of the start-up usability issues.
I guess those are next ;-)
David Abrahams, C++ library designer for hire
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk