Re: About installation

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 22:11:49

on 2/25/02 6:17 PM, Ross Smith at 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.

Why would end users have the Boost source?

If you distribute binaries of your finished products, the end users won't
see the code.

If you are doing an open-source thing, then you would need to include Boost
source.  Couldn't you just keep a private copy of the version of Boost you
used with the rest of your source?  That will protect you from an end user
having a different version of Boost that breaks your code.  I don't know if
this is proper, but you could strip everything out of the private Boost copy
except for the BOOST_ROOT/boost directory (and the various mandatory source
files all over the BOOST_ROOT/libs/* directories [Hmm, another argument for
having an unified mandatory source directory.]).

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com