Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build changes for 1.38
Date: 2008-11-03 14:05:54
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, David Abrahams wrote:
> on Sat Nov 01 2008, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
>> - users start to assume it's "real" configure, and get upset when various
>> variables that CXXFLAGS have no effect
>> - if users want to do anything custom, like mingw cross compilation,
>> they have to go back to direct use of bjam anyway.
This has bitten me a couple times. You'd be surprised how many people
know which flags autoconf needs for a quirky platform.
>> So, I'd like to suggest a solution where building of boost involves three steps:
>> Anybody has comments about this plan?
I like the idea of having a script to compile bjam and copy it to the top
> Yeah. For a surprisingly large number of *nix users, if the
> process doesn't look like ./configure && make && make install, they will
> get upset. That's the reason the configure script was created.
:) Happy autotools user here.
> Only a small subset of those users may try to set CXXFLAGS et. al, and
> even a smaller subset needs to do cross-compilation, so I believe we're
> making more people happy than angry. I would be very, very cautious
> about removing the configure script.
I've had the misfortune of installing boost on several "unusual" boxes
(mostly old Sparc/Solaris). I quickly learned to ignore Boost's configure
script (had to edit some gcc jam rules). Would it be possible to leave in
the configure script and have it print a banner at the end? Something
... # compiling bjam, detecting settings, ...
Boost configuration complete
bjam compiled to path/to/bjam
... # summary of settings
To modify these settings, edit user-config.jam.
To build, run `make` or
bjam --enable-this --disable-that
To install, run `make install` or
bjam --enable-this --disable-that install
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk