Re: [Boost-users] What's best practice to incorporate Boost.Test in ownproject?

From: Mateusz Łoskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-06 12:26:20

Hi Gennadiy,

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Mateusz Loskot" <mateusz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>>I see following possibilities:
>>
>>1. Boost libraries are installed from official release
>>(precompiled or compiled by user)
>>Makefiles for my project try to detect if Boost exists and link to
>>Unit Test Framework librar.
>>Here Boost has to be listed in compilation requirements of my project.
> 
> This option is more or less safe. Since:
> 
> 1. Boost is installed in many places now
> 2. Your own code is quite possibly will have to use boost itself.
> 
> Don't forget though that you will depend on some particular version of 
> boost. Not just any available.

Yes. I think this is the only disadvantage I can see in this solution.

>>2. Boost.Test libraries in binary form are included to my project tree
>>and shipped together.
>>So there is no requirement to have complete Boost installed, because
>>test can link to UTF library already present
> 
> 
> This option is probable safest. Becuse you doesn't require boost 
> dependencies and doesn't require particular version of boost installed. On 
> the other hand it will enlange the size of you deliverables.

Yes, you're right.

>>3. Include Boost.Test source code and allow user of my project to build
>>UTF library on his own. Here I expect some problems with bjam/makefiles
>>incompatibility. So, bjam would be required on user's platform.
>>Simply, this solution seems to be quite confusing for user.
> 
> 
> UTF building doen't require that much effort.

Yes, I think so.
I learned it recently, so I see there should not be a problem to write 
makefile to build UTF lib, as well as create VC++ project file (what 
I've already done easily).

 > User could use any make system
> without probles. There is no additional options required Look on compilation 
> intrsuction in cvs.

That's right.

 > bjam really is not that complicated either. Just
> something many not familiar with.

Huh! I've heared something different :-)
But I'm not going to discuss bjam here.

>>I'd like to know your comments about which solution is best and what are
>>possible traps hidding.
>>Regarding the 1 solution I think there may be possible problem with
>>using incorrect Boost.Test version.
>>The second one involves additional work for overall projct maintenance.
> 
> 
> You right on both counts. I would supply prebuilt UTF binaries as a separate 
> optional. delivarable. Happy owners of proper boost version could use their 
> UTF (build one first one way or another). The rest could download one you 
> supply.

You're recommendation sounds very good.
I think I'll stick to it.

Thank you
-- 
Mateusz Łoskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net