[boost] Re: Customer Friendlier Boost Installation

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 15:02:51

Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> "Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> > David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> What should it say?
>> >
>> >   "Parsing jam file"?
>> >   Or better yet: "parsing build rules"?
>> 
>> Well, it's much more than parsing.  It's actually "evaluating" or
>> "executing" them.  I think "executing" would be misleading, so maybe
>> "evaluating" would be better.
>
> "Determining what needs to be built"?

Not really accurate.

> "Determining the work required to build Boost"?

Kinda vague.

I guess I'd say "building dependency graph."  That's about as accurate
as possible in this case.

>> >>   So if that is insufficient to make it clear that the build will will
>> >>   work even without Python, what do we need to do in order to make it
>> >>   clear?
>> >
>> >   Maybe something along those lines:
>> >   "Unable to find Python. Cannot build the Boost.Python
>> >   lib. If you want to use Boost.Python, look at the docs
>> >   at <link>. Proceeding with other libs..."
>> 
>> It's currently:
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *** If you don't need Boost.Python, you can ignore this section  ***
>                                                                  ^
> Add a semicolon.

These are not supposed to be sentences.  The semicolon adds nothing.
If I were trying to follow rules for writing English prose the ***s
would have to go too.

>> Well, no, but telling you that we found 4471 targets and we're
>> updating 1123 of them has to be more cryptic than helpful!
>
> How about something along these lines:
>
>    Found 4471 items to build, of which 3348 were already current.
>    Updated 1123 items.

Not really accurate.  Most of the items are sources (headers, even),
so they're not "items to build."  They're just nodes in the dependency
graph.

> There's always the old standby approach of printing, in
> succession, the following strings:
>
>    "\r-"
>    "\r\"
>    "\r|"
>    "\r/"
>    repeat
>
> That avoids spewing thousands of lines or characters of output,
> yet gives active feedback.

Does that really work reliably and portably, or are some people going to see

  -\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/-\|/....

??

I suppose it's not much worse than dots if they do.  But if it comes
out as

  -
  \
  |
  /
  -
  \
  |
  /
  -
  \
  |
  /
  ...

everyone's gonna be sorry.

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