Re: [boost] Re: Boost to the rescue

From: Walter Landry (wlandry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-18 07:44:14

Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

You must have missed the enormous flamewars when people suggested
using autoconf.  For example

  http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg25583.php

Given the response, I am not surprised that there is no autoconf
support in Boost.

> 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.

You are confusing me.  The whole point of autoconf is to deal with a
variety of compilers and systems.

> 3. Other than historical familiarity, one of the UI intuitive factors,

Don't knock it.

> it's doesn't give users any improvements on functionality or ease of use
> than the current: "bjam install".

Except that you don't have to install bjam.  It would also have a
chance of working properly.  On my system, bjam could not find the
development headers for my python install, and it spits out annoying
warning if I use a new version of gcc.  This is a bit ridiculous.

> 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 don't need that much.  Just "configure; make; make install".

Cheers,
Walter Landry
wlandry_at_[hidden]