From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-17 13:35:27
Walter Landry wrote:
> Bjørn Roald <bjorn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>My experience installing boost the first time was quite pleasant
>>even if I had to learn a few things about a tool called bjam and get
>>it installed first.
> My view is very different from yours. The last thing that I want to
> do when I am installing a new program is learn about a new build
> system. On Unix, the install procedure should really be "configure ;
> make ; make install". There is really no excuse for that not to be
> the case.
Here are some reasons, none of them are excuses, why it's not
"configure; make install"..
1. Nobody has volunteered the time and expertise to support such a system.
2. Such a system would be unusable to Boost developers which have to
work with a variety of compilers and systems, usually at the same time.
Hence it would be a user only UI; so there is less incentive to support
something like autoconf.
3. Other than historical familiarity, one of the UI intuitive factors,
it's doesn't give users any improvements on functionality or ease of use
than the current: "bjam install".
If people are willing to devote some effort we'd welcome what I would
consider the optimal solution of just: "install". Which would use a
system similar to the Linux Kernel configurator of providing a UI,
graphical or curses, to select parts to install, to build, and to install.
> I would expect a binary installer on Windows.
Same as above.. I would welcome someone building a GUI that supports
fine grained selection of libraries, and tools to install and compilers
to install for. For example I use this.. On Windows.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk