From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-18 14:22:09
I do not have time to read through this thread completely, but here couple
1. There is no sense IMO comparing bjam with autoconfig. It's apples and
oranges. bjam is make substitution. The only advantage of make is that it's
already present in most systems. We chose bjam over make for reasons (look
into bjam docs for some them) that included better flexibility, portability
and expression power.
2. Boost..Build could be considered as a counterpart to autoconfig. These
two follow different ideology: Boost.Build present precreated configuration
files (tools definition) while autoconfig allows to generate these from some
source pattern based on system characteristics. I personally prefer
preexistent files if it possible.
3. I personally don't see what this "installation fuss" is all about. in
majority of the cases the whole installation is: "pkzip -d boost.zip" or
similar. Providers of "packages" could do whatever they want and add build
steps. This is a bit oversimplification. but I do not see need for better
installation (whatever this means) as a showstopper in any form.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk