Re: [boost] Building 'stage' by default

Subject: Re: [boost] Building 'stage' by default
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-23 06:15:25

Paul A. Bristow wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On
>> Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
>> Sent: 22 November 2008 08:40
>> To: Boost mailing list
>> Subject: [boost] Building 'stage' by default
>> 
>> 
>> We presently have 3 ways of building C++ Boost from top-level directory:
>> 
>> - with 'stage' target -- only libraries are installed
>> - with 'install' target -- both libraries and headers are installed
>> - with no explicit target -- everything is built, but nothing
> installed
>> 
>> It seems to me that the first two options are what the majority of users
> will want,
>> so some of them should be the default. I have a local patch that makes
> 'stage' the
>> default, and additionally prints the following message:
>> 
>> Performing 'stage' build by default:
>> - binaries installed into 'stage/lib'
>> - headers not installed, use the source tree
>> Use the 'install' target for complete installation.
>> 
>> This message is printed only if no explicit target is specified -- if user
> types
>> 'stage' or 'install', it's assumed he knows what he's doing.
>> 
>> Anybody has any comments on this change in defaults, or about the wording
> of
>> the message?
> 
> This sounds sensible to me.
> 
> Could all the messages be even more specific - giving full paths?
> Is 'source tree' obvious to newbies?

I don't know. Full paths can easily make this message poorly formatted.

> But don't many people really just want the library in a boost-root/lib
> directory?

I don't know why we use 'stage/lib' by default -- given that we never
create any other subdirectories of 'stage' or put any files there. Maybe,
everything should go into 'stage' directly?

> (leaving aside that the naming of all these sub directories seemed dotty to
> a Windows-newbie - but there you go...).

"dotty"?

- Volodya