Re: [boost] boost build, install, and docs

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 09:35:30

----- Original Message -----
From: "Noel Yap" <yap_noel_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:06 AM
Subject: [boost] boost build, install, and docs

> I'm a newbie to boost who finds its ideas great.
> However, I do find that its build and install is
> extremely incongruent to established free software
> processes (ie autoconf, automake, make).  I was
> wondering why this was so?  According to what I've
> read, there seems to be a push to keep using jam.
> What would it take to move towards the more
> established means of building and installing?

This has been talked to death.  Search the archives for details.  But the
synopsis is that Jam is the direction needed for Boost developers, and
several users as well, but we understand the need for autoconf et. al. as
well and would very much appreciate *volunteers* to generate and *maintain*
such scripts.

> I also think it would be great if the documentation
> were completely moved into a doc subdirectory to make
> it easier to install.

Interesting thought that's not been brought up before (that I recall).  I
see pros and cons here, and personally lean towards retaining the current
layout, but starting a discussion on this wouldn't be a bad idea.

Bill Kempf