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
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
Current location suits no one. \libs\boost or %ProgramFiles%\boost will
make at least *some* users comfortable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk