Re: [boost] About installation

From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 02:12:37

On 2/24/02 9:17 PM, "Ross Smith" <r-smith_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Daryle Walker wrote:
>> 
>> I've seen a lot of messages about using autoconf or jam for installing
>> Boost.  I wonder if these people are making the issue more complicated than
>> it is.  Remember that some of us (like pre-X Mac users) use Boost without
>> Jam, we just resolve the build issues manually.  It's not that hard, just:
>> 
>> 1.  Expand the Boost archive somewhere
>> 2.  Have your makefile or project file point to the BOOST_ROOT/boost
>> directory as part of its search for (system) header files.
>> 3.  For mandatory source files, add those individually to your project file
>> or makefile.
> 
> <sigh> And despite any number of us explaining in great detail, you've
> succeeded in completely missing the point.
> 
> The problem is not installation by developers. That's awkward but
> workable now. The problem is installation by END USERS who wouldn't know
> an include path from a hole in the ground. Expecting users of our
> software to go through anything as complicated as the above is _way_
> beyond the bounds of reason.

I don't think he's missing the point.

This is exactly what I did as a user when I first encountered Boost. And the
entire "what's our build system" thing is lost on me, because this works
fine for me, and I don't want a "build system at all". And it doesn't seem
complicated to me or to other Macintosh programmers. It's the typical way to
do things like this on Macintosh, and it takes no time at all to set up --
just a few clicks. For example, it's how I typically "build" Metrowerks'
PowerPlant framework too.

I think this may be a "Unix development mindset" vs. "Windows development
mindset" vs. "Macintosh development mindset" thing.

Unix programmers expect something like "configure; make; make install", then
get the includes and libraries out of soms special directory. Macintosh
programmers expect to point the IDE at the headers and the source files. I'm
not sure exactly what Windows programmers expect.

This is the main reason there's no discussion of how to port the build
system to Mac OS 9.

    -- Darin