From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 11:08:34
--- In boost_at_y..., Iain.Hanson_at_u... wrote:
>
>
> Author: williamkempf (williamkempf_at_h...) at unix,mime
> Date: 22/02/02 14:48
>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> performance metrics. But where deployment is concerned, Windows
is
> >> downright developer-*hostile*.
>
> >I disagree. MSI installations are much friendly then autotools
>
> [snip]
>
> come on guys. we're surely not going to have a my platform is
better than
> yours contest here.
No, I didn't mean my comments to indicate this. I was simply
pointing out that autotools may be the best solution for POSIX
platforms, but it's a difficult solution on Windows and definately in
no way better then the native tools. (Granted, MSI installations
aren't portable and thus don't address the configuration issues that
autotools does... but this thread strayed a bit from that original
topic.)
> If people want to submitt autotools or MSI build and install
scripts I
> don't personally see a problem with that. But boost::developers
should
> stick with our current agreed build environment.
I heartily agree.
Bill Kempf