From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-28 11:10:06
On 2002-02-28 at 03:46 PM, danl_miller_at_[hidden] (danl_miller) wrote:
>--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
>> At 11:54 AM 2/24/2002, Rene Rivera wrote:
>> >There has been some discussion before as to what installing Boost
>> >and that is what we seem to want to discuss now. Question is, as a
>> >user" what do think a Boost install should do?
>> This is probably a naive view, but shouldn't Boost install do
>> necessary to make it look like Boost is part of the compiler
>> object library set? (Even better if it can also make the Boost
>> look like they were part of the compiler supplied header set.)
> Colocating Boost libraries with compiler-supplied libraries (and
>colocating Boost headers with compiler-supplied headers) would be
I agree, it causes more problems than it solves.
Takign a look at what other source type programs do (gcc, emacs, perl, etc.).
It seems that versioning the subdirectories under a common prefix location is
a workable practice. Would then something like the following work for us?
Those are the "source" files. For documentation it gets a little tricky. There
are two possible practices:
$prefix/share/boost/1.27.0/doc/...(reproduce html tree & files)
$prefix/share/doc/boost/1.27.0/...(reproduce html tree & files)
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk