Point being, I don't want someone not to use my software because
they're (justifiably) daunted by the prospect of installing the entire
Boost distribution. Rather, I want to make the build process as simple and flexible as possible.<br>
<br>
Ideally, my software should be sufficiently idiot-proof that anyone
could untar the package, issue a single command ('./build.sh'), and get
a clean complete build without doing any else, even if they don't have
Boost installed.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/29/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Christian Henning</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:chhenning@gmail.com">chhenning@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Why not give them a binary?</blockquote><div><br>
Because I don't know what platform they're on.<br>
I'm sure you can think of other reasons why distributing binaries is dispreferred.<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">If this doesn't work, than try a script<br>that executes the bjam compiling only the program_options, which I
<br>believe also need the biggest lib of boost, serialization.</blockquote><div><br>
Although 'program_options' depends upon quite a few headers, I tried it
out and---if I'm not mistaken---you can build and link it into code
using just the source files in program_options/. No serialization code
is necessary.<br>
<br>
Also, potential users of my software may not have bjam installed. I'm
trying to eliminate as many hurdles for the end-users as possible.<br>
</div></div><br>
Thanks,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; Joseph<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~turian/">http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~turian/</a>