I've simply taken the boost_1_27_0 directory tree and added the parts that I use to my source tree to be maintained as part of my source. As boost grows this situation may change but, at least for what I'm doing (a medium sized server system), more does not seem to be required.
From: Ross Smith [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Why Jam?
> --- In boost@y..., Ross Smith <r-smith@i...> wrote:
> > bill_kempf wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't disagree. There was a bit of humor in what I said (see
> > > winky?). However, the consumers of Boost are developers and
> > > be able to easily deal with the installation of headers.
> > This is not true.
> > Boost becomes part of the required source code for any project that
> > it. If the project is distributed in source form, anyone who
> installs it
> > has to install Boost too, just like they have to install any other
> > library the project depends on. For other libraries that's not a
> > problem, because we can count on them being available in autoconf
> > rpm form.
> Sorry, I have to admit I'm used to a different model of
> installation/distribution. You are correct that some "consumers"
> will not actually be developers.
For "some" read "the overwhelming majority".
Of the three groups of people who need to be able to install it --
closed source developers (you), open source developers (me), and open
source users -- the third group certainly outnumbers the first two put
together by several orders of magnitude.
> > There's nothing so convenient for Boost. The current Jam-based
> > system is a bad joke; I'd bet money that nobody but Bill and the
> > of others who developed it and know it intimately has ever got it to
> > work.
> Careful. Calling things a "bad joke" isn't likely to get you any
Where did I ask for help? I'm just one of the voices in the wilderness
here trying to point out the state of the emperor's clothes.
> BTW, I'm not a developer of the Boost.Build system. I'm only a
> consumer. The only difference between me and some others is that I
> had to develop the Jamfile for Boost.Threads instead of just run
How does that make you "not a developer"? You wrote part of the build
system, that makes you a developer.
> --- In boost@y..., "braden_mcdaniel" <braden@e...> wrote:
> > Installation must be as simple as "./configure;make;make install". It
> > doesn't have to be those commands exactly, but that spirit of
> > simplicity must be intact. If Boost can get there with Jam, that's
> > fine by me.
> I'm sure that eventually we will (though not necessarily just with
> Jam). However, that time is too distant to be of interest to you.
I guess that finally makes it explicit. Boost is aimed purely at closed
source developers, and the powers that be have no plans to make it
usable with open source.
If you believe that's an unfair paraphrase of your position, then I
challenge you to explain how Boost can be used in an open source project
in its current state or the foreseeable future.
Ross Smith ...................................... Auckland, New Zealand
firstname.lastname@example.org ......................... http://storm.net.nz/~ross/
"We need a new cosmology. New gods. New sacraments. Another drink."
-- Patti Smith
Info: http://www.boost.org Send unsubscribe requests to: <mailto:email@example.com>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/