From: Administrator (administrator_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-18 12:13:57
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rene Rivera [mailto:grafik666_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 4:50 PM
> To: jamboost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [jamboost] Common Lib Subdir
> ...So I'd say the best way you can help is by taking a look
> at what the
> proposed build+install procedure does and giving feedback. In
> addition to
> the current CVS, which you already have, check out the
> boost-root/Jamfile on
> the build_for_distribution branch...
> cvs co -r build_for_distribution boost/Jamfile
> It tries to mimic configure type options, which you can get help on by
> cd boost-root
> bjam --help
> One immediate feedback question I have for you is wether it's
> more important
> to build+install, as autoconf/configure/make does, or just
> build, and let
> the user and/or package builders install?
Personally, I want the libraries that I download to be able to handle the
whole procedure, taking into account my personal preferences where things
should be installed. If this can be done in a platform-independent way,
then, yeah, I'm all for the autoconf/configure/make paradigm. If it can't
be done, then I want everything down to two or three folders, with no nested
heirarchy (boost/boost excluded), to be able to copy wherever I need them.
> I looked at the patches you posted on the Boost.Users list,
> but feel free to
> post them here for those others that may be interested.
I have attached them to this email for all to see and comment on.
> The one comment I have about your patches is that the
> approach you took is
> unlikely to win favor with the Boost library authors. This is
> because they
> would have to maintain the stage rules themselves. Most
> authors tend to want
> less things to worry about, rather than more ;-)
> That said.. having something like an "install" rule for
> library authors to
> specify what they want installed could be a workable and prefered
That actually sounds pretty reasonable. This actually harks back to what I
was saying earlier. I like having one common directory for everyone to
initial-stage binaries into (i.e. boost-root/lib). Then, it's easy to
simply copy everything in that one dir to where we want to install, or,
ideally, the user to simply copy that dir to wherever they want.
Okay, so I've actually tried out the install process. So far, everything is
working out except for the fact that I would rather have the install step be
separated out. A minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, I think. For
the most part, though, it's working like I expect it to be.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk