Re: Why Jam?

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 17:21:44

--- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> bill_kempf wrote:
> > 
> > --- 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.
> 
> For "some" read "the overwhelming majority".
> 
> Of the three groups of people who need to be able to install it --
> closed source developers (you), open source developers (me), and 
open
> source users -- the third group certainly outnumbers the first two 
put
> together by several orders of magnitude.

1) It's a new phenomenon that the third group even exists.

2) Group 3 isn't actually a consumer of Boost... they are a consumer 
of group 2's efforts, so one could argue that it's the responsibility 
of group 2 to handle this (I'm not going quite that far, though the 
truth is they can and should do this until Boost can settle on a 
usable solution).

> > > 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.
> 
> Where did I ask for help? I'm just one of the voices in the 
wilderness
> here trying to point out the state of the emperor's clothes.

Oh, so you don't want help, you just want to complain.  Guess we can 
all ignore you then.  (Note that this is sarcasm meant to point out 
the fact that you actually *ARE* asking for 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.
> 
> How does that make you "not a developer"? You wrote part of the 
build
> system, that makes you a developer.

I did not say I wasn't a developer.  I said I wasn't a developer of 
the Boost.Build system.  You claimed only "Bill and the handful of 
others who developed it and know it intimately has ever got it to 
work".  I'm pointing out that I'm not one of those who developed it 
so you can't put us in the same group.  Now if your intent wasn't to 
claim I was part of that group, but only that somehow I was magically 
able to get it to work and I'm the only one who could beyond those 
who did develop it, then you weren't very clear.  Further, I pointed 
out that there was very little effort in getting it to work for me, 
making it unlikely that I could be "magically lucky".  Besides, as 
others have pointed out there are many other's who've gotten it to 
work as well, most with no problems.

It appears that the problems you've had aren't really problems with 
getting the build system to work, it's only been with bugs in the 
code.  A configure tool wouldn't have helped you in this case.

> > --- In boost_at_y..., "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Installation must be as simple as "./configure;make;make 
install". It
> > > doesn't have to be those commands exactly, but that spirit of
> > > simplicity must be intact. If Boost can get there with Jam, 
that's
> > > fine by me.
> >
> > I'm sure that eventually we will (though not necessarily just 
with 
> > Jam).  However, that time is too distant to be of interest to 
you.  
> 
> I guess that finally makes it explicit. Boost is aimed purely at 
closed
> source developers, and the powers that be have no plans to make it
> usable with open source.

That's a very poor interpretation of what I just said, and is frankly 
not correct.  Boost isn't positioned as either a library aimed at 
open source developers or as a library aimed at closed source 
developers.  It's simply a voluntary effort to produce libraries for 
research into possible language extensions.  Not all contributors 
have the expertise or the ability to provide the scripts you think 
are required for "open source" development, and we mustn't discourage 
them from contributing because of this.  So, for the short term we 
need volunteers to provide the scripts you want (and, again, this 
could be *YOU* that provides this, so if you don't want to volunteer 
you have little room to complain), and the long term goal should be 
to find solutions to the problem that will be compatible with Boost's 
unique needs.
 
> If you believe that's an unfair paraphrase of your position, then I
> challenge you to explain how Boost can be used in an open source 
project
> in its current state or the foreseeable future.

By having those in the open source community who are interested in 
this doing the work to get it there.

Bill Kempf