From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-02 06:41:31
on Tue May 01 2007, Richard Hadsell <hadsell-AT-blueskystudios.com> wrote:
> Doug Gregor wrote:
>>Let me put it this way: since I wrote the "configure" script for
>>Boost, the number of times I've been told that Boost is too hard to
>>build (e.g., at conferences and workshops) has decreased
>>*drastically*. bjam is powerful, but it's non-traditional. For all of
>>the failures of autotools (and there are many!), *nix programmers
>>understand how to build autotools-based projects and can do it very,
>>very easily. "./configure && make && make install" is enough for the
>>vast majority of the open source projects in the world.
> I agree. It's probably fine for common cases. I only think the docs
> should not offer hope of configuring with an alternate compiler (at
> least, one that is not in the user's path) by describing environment
> variables that seem to have no effect.
> BTW, it did the job of finding the installed Python, which is in itself
> an improvement.
FWIW, Boost.Build itself now has very sophisticated
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com Don't Miss BoostCon 2007! ==> http://www.boostcon.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk