From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 11:08:34
--- In boost_at_y..., Iain.Hanson_at_u... wrote:
> Author: williamkempf (williamkempf_at_h...) at unix,mime
> Date: 22/02/02 14:48
> --- In boost_at_y..., "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...> wrote:
> >> performance metrics. But where deployment is concerned, Windows
> >> downright developer-*hostile*.
> >I disagree. MSI installations are much friendly then autotools
> come on guys. we're surely not going to have a my platform is
> yours contest here.
No, I didn't mean my comments to indicate this. I was simply
pointing out that autotools may be the best solution for POSIX
platforms, but it's a difficult solution on Windows and definately in
no way better then the native tools. (Granted, MSI installations
aren't portable and thus don't address the configuration issues that
autotools does... but this thread strayed a bit from that original
> If people want to submitt autotools or MSI build and install
> don't personally see a problem with that. But boost::developers
> stick with our current agreed build environment.
I heartily agree.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk