RE: [jamboost] Common Lib Subdir

From: Administrator (administrator_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-18 12:13:57

Rene,

> -----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
<snip>

> 
> ...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
> doing...
> 
> 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. 

<snip>
> 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
> alternative.

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.

<much_much_later>

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.

Dale