From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-22 13:00:36
--- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> bill_kempf wrote:
> >
> > I don't disagree. There was a bit of humor in what I said (see
the
> > winky?). However, the consumers of Boost are developers and
should
> > be able to easily deal with the installation of headers.
>
> This is not true.
>
> Boost becomes part of the required source code for any project that
uses
> it. If the project is distributed in source form, anyone who
installs it
> has to install Boost too, just like they have to install any other
> library the project depends on. For other libraries that's not a
> problem, because we can count on them being available in autoconf
and/or
> rpm form.
Sorry, I have to admit I'm used to a different model of
installation/distribution. You are correct that some "consumers"
will not actually be developers.
> There's nothing so convenient for Boost. The current Jam-based
install
> system is a bad joke; I'd bet money that nobody but Bill and the
handful
> of others who developed it and know it intimately has ever got it to
> work.
Careful. Calling things a "bad joke" isn't likely to get you any
help.
BTW, I'm not a developer of the Boost.Build system. I'm only a
consumer. The only difference between me and some others is that I
had to develop the Jamfile for Boost.Threads instead of just run
Jam. However, I had to figure out how to run Jam before I could even
do that, and this effort took less then 2 hours, with most of the
problems coming from a problem with spaces in path names that's since
been addressed.
Bill Kempf