From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-06 02:11:11
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Daniel Wallin wrote:
>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> some things that BBv2 can't do (my favorite: graphical installers),
>> Can it create graphical installers that are actually useful to us? For
>> example, can the installer download the binaries one by one rather
>> including all of them in the exe?
> I don't recall seeing this feature, but I don't know for certain.
>> If not, there's very little that indicate this would be any easier
>> to do
>> with CMake than with BBv2. It's not like it's impossible, or even very
>> hard, to output and build NSIS code.
> Well, except that CMake builds installers for many kinds of platforms
> already. The incremental cost of adding the feature you mention to
> CMake/CPack (assuming it isn't there) is far less than the cost of
> extending BBv2 with support for NSIS, Mac OS X packages, RPMs, Debian
> packages, etc.
I thought we where talking about Cmake? Is Cpack the installer add-on?
Like Ctest is the testing add-on? So we aren't talking about Boost
adopting Cmake, but adopting Cmake+Ctest+Cpack. That's three tools now.
Am I confused? Will Boost developers be confused also? Will Boost users
Is the installer generator taking a separate abstract install
description, or is it using the Cmake descriptions and deciding what to
install from that? If the latter, I see no way one would ever use it as
the install process is never the same as the build process.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
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