Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 12:18:10

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> What inconvenience are you actually facing? Sorry, but I did get it yet.
>> Let's say I want an apple sauce. Instead you giving me an apples (they
>> may
>> be good ones or not so much, since for sauce it doesn't really matter and
>> why waste good apples on sauce) and saying that if I have powerful enough
>> mixer (or whatever it called) I could get a sauce in just a second. And
>> the
>> reason you are telling me is that there are some people out there who
>> may've
>> want slightly less sugar. I believe it's not good enough: give me my
>> sauce -
>> I do not want spend time making one, I do not have an appropriate mixer
>> and
>> I do not have a space to store all these apples.
> I understand what you're saying. On the other hand "install from
> source" has become a standard practice in the open-source world. The
> only thing that seems to make that argument less applicable than it
> would otherwise be is that this software requires a fairly conformant
> compiler. Right?

Not only.

1. "install from source" practice is more *nix oriented. Cygwin for example
doesn't require user to compile it's components
2. Wave at the moment does require conformant compiler while end ser may
want to use it with different one
3. Boost is distributed as a set of libraries. The main point I am trying to
make it we should separate tools into standalone packages and:
   a. Main delivery package includes only users docs plus location where
prebuilt binaries are and where the source package is
   b. We prebuilt tools for some set of OSs
   c. Source package include reference docs and instruction how to build an
executable from sources

This practice could be applied to any tools including bjam and wave


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at