From: Braden McDaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 22:29:05
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 17:21, bill_kempf wrote:
> --- 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > > library the project depends on. For other libraries that's not a
> > > > problem, because we can count on them being available in
> > > 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
> > source users -- the third group certainly outnumbers the first two
> > together by several orders of magnitude.
> 1) It's a new phenomenon that the third group even exists.
Hardly. The popularity of free Unix derivatives just makes that group
bigger and thus more difficult to ignore.
> 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 tend to consider anyone who needs to download, install, and use my
software a consumer of that software. What definition of consumer are
> (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).
That's not the "truth". Its your opinion, and one that's clearly colored
by the different requirements of closed-source development. The fact is
that doing as you describe results in a *lot* of duplicated work. In
general, open source developers try to avoid duplicating work.
I think it's unreasonable to ask that Boost users go to all this trouble
while Boost searches for a "perfect" solution, while an
imperfect-but-adequate solution could solve a large class of problems
and keep from imposing all that work.
-- Braden McDaniel e-mail: <braden_at_[hidden]> <http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <braden_at_[hidden]>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk