Re: [boost] Boost.Build changes for 1.38

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build changes for 1.38
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-03 09:57:46

David Abrahams wrote:

> 
> on Sun Nov 02 2008, Michael Caisse <boost-AT-objectmodelingdesigns.com> wrote:
> 
>> we do have a swarm of people after new releases on IRC who cannot get
>> the ./configure && make process to "work".
> 
> What specific problems are they having?
> 

Well, just today:

[17:36] <brubelsabs> when I try to compile my program with the -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG flag, I get errors
that some symbols are not found. I've compiled boost by myself via CFLAGS=-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and
CXXFLAGS=-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG flag.. can someone guide me what should I try next?
[17:36] <brubelsabs> I use regex as well as program_options
[17:40] <volodya> brubelsabs: compiled boost yourself via what?
[17:43] <brubelsabs> volodya: CXX=g++ CC=gcc CFLAGS=-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG=1
CXXFLAGS=-D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG=1 ./configure --prefix=/tmp/bd --with-libraries=regex,program_options --with-icu
[17:43] <brubelsabs> volodya: that was my configure call
[17:44] <volodya> none of these variables have any effect
...
[17:48] <volodya> did you think this is autoconf/automake build process?
[17:49] <brubelsabs> volodya: yes I thought so

Just about every user who wants to do anything else but build with default system gcc gets either
to (1) use bjam directly, or (2) try hard to make configure do something, and then use bjam
directly.

In other words, the statement that folks want "configure; make; make install" is not accurate --
they also assume autoconf + automake. Providing configure actually makes a false impression,
and whereas we can counter this impression by making configure produce big warnings that it's
not real configure, we can just as well use different name.

- Volodya