Boost logo

Boost :

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-18 12:48:20

At Monday 2005-04-18 05:44, you wrote:
>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
>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.

does it work on Windows? and the book on autoconf / automake is the least
scrutable book ever written in the English language.

> > 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.

or install autoconf

> 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.

on my system autoconf results in:
'autoconf' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

and the last time I -did- have it installed, it got run 5 times by an
install script and tested the same damned stuff over and over and
over. IMO a worthless piece of junk.

> > 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".

as I said, "configure" don't exist on my systems, and like it or not, *nix
is a _very_ small portion of the market.

>Walter Landry
>Unsubscribe & other changes:

Victor A. Wagner Jr.
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"

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