Boost logo

Boost :

From: Timothy M. Shead (tshead_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-14 21:12:58

> We haven't considered installation too much yet, but it's in the works.

> Is libtool really the answer to everything on platforms where it's
> available?

Using libtool, a package that I maintain builds/links/properly installs
shared libraries under modern unices, static libs under older Unices
that don't support shared libs, and DLLs under Cygwin/Windows without
any intervention on the users' part - so I'd say "yes".

> If libtool is such a general build/installation tool, does it

> handle executables also?


> If it does everything so well, why do people use

> other tools? I just want to get a balanced sense of its place in the world.

What other tools? I'd never heard of Jam until looking at the boost
source a few days ago, and Jam doesn't provide near the functionality -
it's fair to say that autoconf/automake/libtool is a complex solution to
a complex problem; with an autotools-based build, I can do

        $ make distcheck

and sit back while the tools create a distribution archive in one
directory, unpack it into a second, cross-compile it into a third, and
run regression tests on the results, leaving me with a very high level
of confidence that the archive is complete and will compile for other
people. If I give you that archive, you can do

        $ ./configure
        $ make distcheck

and do the whole thing on your machine. Just about the only argument I
can think of against using autotools for boost is that the average
Windows installation doesn't have the environment necessary to run it.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at