Re: [boost] building shared boost libraries

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?

Absolutely.

 > 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.

Tim