Re: Installing Boost (WAS: Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?)

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
>should
>>  >be,
>>  >and that is what we seem to want to discuss now. Question is, as a
>"Boost
>>  >user" what do think a Boost install should do?
>> 
>> Rene,
>> 
>> This is probably a naive view, but shouldn't Boost install do
>whatever is 
>> necessary to make it look like Boost is part of the compiler
>supplied 
>> object library set?  (Even better if it can also make the Boost
>headers 
>> look like they were part of the compiler supplied header set.)
>> 
>> --Beman
>
>  Colocating Boost libraries with compiler-supplied libraries (and
>colocating Boost headers with compiler-supplied headers) would be
>problematic.

[snip]

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?

$prefix/include/boost/1.27.0/boost/.../*.hpp
$prefix/lib/boost/1.27.0/*.(a,so)
$prefix/share/boost/1.27.0/tools/build/*.jam

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)

Or...

$prefix/share/doc/boost/1.27.0/...(reproduce html tree & files)

Thoughts?

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
-- 102708583_at_icq - Grafik666_at_AIM - Grafik_at_[hidden]