Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-30 07:51:14

Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

I'm not convinced of that. I don't think it's particularly good, but
I'm sure it's fine for a few people. *Lots* of people install Python
in its default location on Windows: C:\Python24. As far as I can
tell, there are no complaints. Google around to see if you can find

> \libs\boost or %ProgramFiles%\boost will make at least *some* users
> comfortable.

The question is, will it make *more* people comfortable? I prefer not
to change anything until we have an alternative that's definitively an

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at