[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 11:01:15

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uekbuw08z.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:

...

>> 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.

Ok, I'm a real neophyte here though. I assume somehow that I need to get a 
SF user name. Any hints on doing that? Does this mean I subscribe to 
sourceforge?

>> 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?

Currently "I" don't need anything more. ;) I'll have to take a look at that 
again. I downloaded bjam.exe at least a couple of years ago, and copied it 
to my C:\boost directory. Then I copy it to each boost version directory 
when I download/unzip a new version of boost. I remember way back in 2000, 
that I was under the impression that I had to get the bjam project and build 
it to get a bjam.exe.

Can one say that those users that download a .zip(or self extracting .exe) 
of boost are on windows? Couldn't a windows bjam.exe be added to the 
version's root directory? Then you just do a cd to C:\boost\boost_1_32_0 and 
run "bjam -sTOOLS=vc-7_1 install". Or possibly add a setup.bat file that you 
can double-click on from windows explorer?

>> 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.

I see no problem with 7_1 rather than 7.1. I think having '.','-' and '_' in 
a single command line parameter is is more confusing than say 'vc7_1'.

> 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.

Of course that would bring up the (rhetorical)question of how long before a 
1.34 release?

Thanks, Jeff Flinn