[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-26 17:10:53

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

> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> news:uekbtq4f8.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>> "Jeff Flinn" <TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> "Rene Rivera" <grafik.list_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>> news:4295E416.6030803_at_redshift-software.com...
>>>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>>>>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
>
> ...
>
>>> Do most users ever see(or need be concerned with) what these parameters
>>> eventually expand to?
>>
>> I don't understand the question.
>
> The previous response implied that the "-sTOOLS=vc-7_1" was used to generate 
> file names like "vc-7_1-tools.jam". This led me to believe that the dashes 
> and dots are currently required to ease the generation of such
> filenames. 

Well, yeah.  The elements of the TOOLS variable get "-tools.jam"
appended and that's treated as a toolset file name.

> I've never needed to know what was going on under the hood of bjam/build in 
> the past. So if more user friendly names, I'd think that I wouldn't ever 
> notice that "sTOOLS=vc7_1" generated/used file(s) named "vc-7_1-tools.jam". 
> So couldn't there be more separation between the presentation and 
> representation of the build system? 

That's just hard to program and maintain.

> In other words are the following doable?
>
> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc6_5" install
> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_0" install
> bjam "-sTOOLS=vc7_1" install

Sure, but the easy way is just to rename the toolset files.
But seriously, you really are comfortable with the underscore?

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