From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-17 16:20:44
David Abrahams wrote:
> Allen Bierbaum <allenb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> Allen Bierbaum <allenb_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> So I guess the question would be, is there interest from the boost
>> admins in accepting an rpm spec file (based on Patrick and Neal's work)
>> and making it the recommended way for packagers to build boost. Or said
>> another way, is there interest in putting the boost seal of approval on
>> packaging and installation methods?
> I am interested.
>> If there is interest, what are the next steps for getting an rpm
>> spec file accepted?
> Post it along with an explanation of what it does and rationale for
> your choices, I guess.
Another, but related, question would be whether that could be abstracted
a little along these lines:
* how much of the info can be extracted from the build system automatically ?
* what (meta)data needs to be added by developers manually ?
* can the same process be repeated for other packagers, such as deb or msi ?
If that's possible, may be packaging could be a new boost.build feature ?
I guess these questions are more relevant to the boost.build ML, so I'm Cc'ing them
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk