Re: [boost] Boost.Build changes for 1.38

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Build changes for 1.38
From: dherring_at_[hidden]
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 
directory.

> 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
like

""
# ./configure
... # compiling bjam, detecting settings, ...
Boost configuration complete
Configuration summary
   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
""

- Daniel