[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 09:05:48

"Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Jonathan Wakely" <cow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:20050526103904.GA87354_at_compsoc.man.ac.uk...
>> On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 07:18:46PM -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>>
>>> Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>> > Admittedly there should be example command lines for vc-7_1 etc and
>>> > not just gcc.
>>>
>>> Can you suggest where we should show those examples?  There are quite
>>> a few toolsets!  Maybe in the table?
>>
>> Maybe the example should feature VC, since the VC users are the ones
>> likely to be least familiar and least comfortable with a command line
>> tool and figuring out the right options.
>>
>> Unix users are used to scouring man pages to determine the right set of
>> cryptic flags and switches, so tailor it to the users who need the most
>> hand-holding with the command-line process.
>
> This is absolutely one of those ideas that after you hear it, you think, 
> "well that was obvious". :) It provides the biggest bang for the samllest 
> change.
>
> I think that if the current example were as you suggest, this whole topic 
> probably would not have come up. Issuing:
>
>     bjam "-sTOOLS=vc-7_1" install
>
> would probably do what the majority of first time users would
> intuit. 

Unless they did what Schobi did (twice): type ..\bjam.exe and then
paste the entire command line.

But if a change like that will make a difference, send me your SF user
name and I'll give you CVS access, so you can fix it.

> I would probably have windows explorer open and have gotten visual
> feedback on where the directories were placed. If I didn't like the
> default location, I would just move the directories to where I
> wanted them.
>
> Now my only concerns would be the ease of getting a bjam.exe
> available 

We've always had a binary download for windows available.  What more
do you need?

> and the inconsistency in naming for the VC targets:
>
> msvc   // VC6.5 can we add vc6_5?
> vc7    // VC7   would vc7_0 be better?
> vc-7_1 // VC7.1 why the dash? why not vc7_1?

The dash is there for dumb reasons: we call the toolset files 

    <toolsetname>-tools.jam

and for the purposes of building a Boost distro on CD we can't have
filenames with multiple '.' characters in them, so we changed '.' to
'_' in the names of things like vc-7.1-tools.jam.  But we should have
changed BBv1 to allow users to type a '.' on the command-line and
translate it internally when we made that change; it would be pretty
easy.  As for naming consistency, yes, it would probably be better.

BBv2 fixes all of these problems, and we've been reluctant to make
trivial improvements in BBv1 because it's been so long anticipated
that it would be retired.  Now it looks like it won't be retired until
just after 1.33, so it's a toss-up whether we should do anything about
it.  I'm willing to go either way.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com