Re: Why Jam?

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 13:00:36

--- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> bill_kempf wrote:
> > 
> > I don't disagree.  There was a bit of humor in what I said (see 
the
> > winky?).  However, the consumers of Boost are developers and 
should
> > be able to easily deal with the installation of headers.
> 
> This is not true.
> 
> Boost becomes part of the required source code for any project that 
uses
> it. If the project is distributed in source form, anyone who 
installs it
> has to install Boost too, just like they have to install any other
> library the project depends on. For other libraries that's not a
> problem, because we can count on them being available in autoconf 
and/or
> rpm form.

Sorry, I have to admit I'm used to a different model of 
installation/distribution.  You are correct that some "consumers" 
will not actually be developers.

> There's nothing so convenient for Boost. The current Jam-based 
install
> system is a bad joke; I'd bet money that nobody but Bill and the 
handful
> of others who developed it and know it intimately has ever got it to
> work.

Careful.  Calling things a "bad joke" isn't likely to get you any 
help.

BTW, I'm not a developer of the Boost.Build system.  I'm only a 
consumer.  The only difference between me and some others is that I 
had to develop the Jamfile for Boost.Threads instead of just run 
Jam.  However, I had to figure out how to run Jam before I could even 
do that, and this effort took less then 2 hours, with most of the 
problems coming from a problem with spaces in path names that's since 
been addressed.

Bill Kempf