From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-29 16:25:00
Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> If you look at
>> bjam --v2 --help
>> you'll see a mix of option styles. There's
>> with two words separated by a hyphen, but there's also
>> I believe --builddir is especially heinous because, IIUC, the
>> official BBv2 option is --build-dir.
> <sracasm> Welcome to the wonderful world of autoconf options. </sarcasm>
> The "--exec-prefix" is what autoconf uses. And the "--builddir" follows
> the autoconf style for things like "--bindir", "--datadir", etc:
> Fine tuning of the installation directories:
> --bindir=DIR user executables [EPREFIX/bin]
> --sbindir=DIR system admin executables [EPREFIX/sbin]
> --libexecdir=DIR program executables [EPREFIX/libexec]
> --datadir=DIR read-only architecture-independent data
> --sysconfdir=DIR read-only single-machine data [PREFIX/etc]
> --sharedstatedir=DIR modifiable architecture-independent data
> --localstatedir=DIR modifiable single-machine data [PREFIX/var]
> --libdir=DIR object code libraries [EPREFIX/lib]
> --includedir=DIR C header files [PREFIX/include]
> --oldincludedir=DIR C header files for non-gcc [/usr/include]
> --infodir=DIR info documentation [PREFIX/info]
> --mandir=DIR man documentation [PREFIX/man]
I should've known :(
>> This is making it hard for me to
>> give clear and straightforward getting started instructions.
> Yea, clarity, one of the reasons I hate autoconf.
>> Can we please settle on one convention? I prefer (by far) the
>> versions with the hyphens.
> Sure... But do we want to stray from the insistent users familiar with
> autoconf options?
>> If there's some need to keep the un-hyphenated options for backward
>> compatibility, can we at least make them undocumented?
> The only backward compatibility would be the configure script (not that
> it works as is anyway),
Needs to be fixed, then.
> and possible user scripts. The former can be fixed, the latter is
> more problematic, but since users would likely need to change such
> scripts to account for the rest of the new BBv2 syntax I wouldn't
> worry too much about it.
Right. I think we'd better keep the autoconf options for our
configure script... maybe it makes sense to keep them for Boost.Build
as well, but simply document them as an allowed alternative. I
actually think that accepting both forms will make the tool easier to
use, since I've very often dropped or added hyphens to configure
scripts and gotten the wrong results.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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