on Thu Nov 06 2008, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2008 19:55:33 David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Nov 06 2008, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
On Thursday 06 November 2008 17:38:02 David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Nov 06 2008, Vladimir Prus <ghost-AT-cs.msu.su> wrote:
Dave, I am reading the getting started guide, and think some of the build instructions can be improved. I can do this myself, if we agree on the nature of the changes.
For reference, I'm looking at:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_37_0/more/getting_started/windows.html> > 5 Prepare to Use a Boost Library Binary
I think the section title is too long-winded. "Prepare" does not even suggest any kind of building. And of course, we have many libraries, so saying "a ... Binary" is not accurate. Would "Building Library Binaries" be more to the point?
No. You may have used the installer.
And what about "a ... Binary" being not accurate, given that there's lots of library binaries?
It *is* accurate. We're working on a single example, and to build/run that example you need a library binary, and this section describes what you need to do to prepare to use it.
Maybe it's just me, but when I start doing anything with a new tool or library, the first thing I do is to build all of it. Cherry-picking specific libraries is less common use-case.
Even if I were to stipulate to that assertion, none of it bears on the accuracy of "a ... Binary" in the context of this tutorial. Every mind-numbingly-long step in a tutorial has a serious negative impact on learnability. Building all of Boost is really slow. Even downloading all the binaries with the installer can be slow.
People who know they don't need binaries based on earlier sections of the document shouldn't be instructed to build and install them from the beginning.
Oh, you mean that the first section of the document say this:
To complete this tutorial, you'll need to at least install the Static Multithreaded variants of the Boost.Regex binaries when given the option.
Yes.
I think there are some problems with the text in section 5, still:
- It demands that you install *all* variants of Boost.Regex, while the above say only one variant is necessary.
Good point.
- Many users will jump straight to section 5 (e.g. because they just want to get Boost libraries, and are not interested in preceding sections).
I don't believe you, but if so, they're in the wrong place. This is a getting started guide, not a "how to build boost" guide.
Or even if they read section 1, at this point they already forgotten that Boost.Regex is going to be used in example. And they were not instructed, previously, to run the installer. So, this passage can be interpreted as asking the user to run the installer twice -- which is how I've interpreted it.
It's simple. The passage says to re-run the installer if, the first time, you didn't select the options needed for the upcoming step. I don't understand what you're objecting to.
I would not try, actually. For most users, bjam and Boost.Build are not independent projects, so saying that Boost.Build is invoked by typing bjam on the command line seems reasonable.
I was trying to make the distinction and relationship between bjam and Boost.Build a little clearer. I think you may be forgetting the many people who used to say, "I read all through the bjam documentation but I can't figure out how to <do something that's Boost.Build functionality>"
I think this problem better solved by giving pointers to Boost.Build docs, and generally stressing that "bjam" is just the command-line name of Boost.Build.
I think you're forgetting all those people who pick it up and try to use it as "a better Perforce jam," expecting Boost.Build features and command-line options to be there. It can't be used as instructed without the BB sources, and that's very different from other binary build tools. I don't see a great advantage in changing this already-short text and the possible downsides are unattractive to me.
5.2.3 Select a Build Directory Boost.Build will place all intermediate files it generates while building into the build directory. If your Boost root directory is writable, this step isn't strictly necessary: by default Boost.Build will create a bin.v2/ subdirectory for that purpose in your current working directory.
I suggest that this section be dropped. In describes a non-mainstream usage that is better be describe elsewhere.
Maybe, but the thing I worry about is that a suitable "elsewhere" doesn't exist. People seem to expect the GSG to tell them all sorts of things that perhaps should be in a Boost.Build guide. I think that's because they are having a hard time making the jump to that documentation.
If you add a link to Boost.Build command line, that's where --build-dir is documented:
http://www.boost.org/boost-build2/doc/html/bbv2/advanced/invocation.html> IMO the description of build-dir there is unsuitable for a beginning user who doesn't know what these terms really mean:
"project roots" "Jamroot files" "declare project name" "the project name specified in Jamroot" "build dir specified in Jamroot"
That might be OK if --build-dir is a truly esoteric option that almost nobody needs. Now that we put everything under bin.v2, that might be true. It certainly wasn't true with BBv1, where targets were always built inside project directories by default. I'd like to hear some other peoples' opinions on whether it's still relevant.
FWIW, I've filed an issue to improve --build-dir docs.
OK, still waiting to hear from others before removing it from the GSG.
If the summary does not include any failed targets, your build is successful, and the library binaries can be found in the 'stage' directory.
"the 'stage' directory" is too imprecise. How will the reader find it?
If no --stagedir option is given, the 'stage' directory is placed in boost source root and named 'stage', exactly. That's what I meant. In fact, this post is prompted by user report on boost-build that say we don't document --stagedir. The --stagedir is an option defined in Boost Jamroot, not in Boost.Build, so probably should be documented. Though relying on bjam --help output may be acceptable, too.
--stagedir and --build-dir are very similar. We should probably make the same decision about documenting both of them.
I agree with Steven, --stagedir controls where the build results go, so users need to know about it. --build-dir controls where intermediate products go, so it's rarely used option.
People need to know how to get rid of those intermediate products. They're huge.
Ok, not "lack", then:
A the beginning of the build, you will be informed what functionality of C++ Boost libraries is disabled because the required third party libraries could not be found.
Personally I don't see how this improves on the text that I already wrote covering this topic. Nobody has reported confusion about that text.
I'd personally be happy with any wording for this section that:
1. Emphasized how user can know if the build is successful, and how to diagnose the problems. E.g. many users, on IRC, fail to report actual compiler errors, or compiler commands and instead report the "failed XXX" message from Boost.Build. Also, where to look for results of the build.
2. Emphasizes that if there are no errors, the only thing user might care about is those configuration notices. The syntax of:
toolset-name.c++ long/path/to/file/being/built
is something, IMO, that need to be described at all.
I disagree strongly unless we suppress those messages. People have repeatedly complained that they don't understand what it means when the tool spits out these messages. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com