[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: Andrey Melnikov (melnikov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-30 06:57:13

David Abrahams wrote:
> Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>>Now boost is a bad example for other libraries. If all libraries will 
>>follow boost's example, we would get c:\boost, c:\zlib, c:\cppunit, 
>>c:\mpich2 etc. This is definitely a bad idea.
> 
> 
> Sheesh, I don't see what the big deal is.  It's not like you can't put
> it wherever you like, whenever you like: as part of installation, or later.
> 
We should consider that users are used to think that installation isn't 
just a copy, and they are afraid to relocate 'installed' files.

Why having installation feature at all then? Let's make stage copying 
headers to stage\ too, and let users decide where to actually copy the 
files.

I don't see any reasons why to have default installation location which 
most users hate? There are basically two opinions in this thread:
- I hate c:\boost location
- Installation location doesn't really matters because I don't use 
install/I relocate files myself/I don't bother about structural look of 
  my drives.

Current location suits no one. \libs\boost or %ProgramFiles%\boost will 
make at least *some* users comfortable.

Andrei