Andrey Melnikov <melnikov@simplexsoft.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Andrey Melnikov <melnikov@simplexsoft.com> writes:
Now boost is a bad example for other libraries. If all libraries will follow boost's example, we would get c:\boost, c:\zlib, c:\cppunit, c:\mpich2 etc. This is definitely a bad idea. Sheesh, I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like you can't put it wherever you like, whenever you like: as part of installation, or later.
We should consider that users are used to think that installation isn't just a copy, and they are afraid to relocate 'installed' files.
Why having installation feature at all then? Let's make stage copying headers to stage\ too, and let users decide where to actually copy the files.
I don't see any reasons why to have default installation location which most users hate? There are basically two opinions in this thread: - I hate c:\boost location - Installation location doesn't really matters because I don't use install/I relocate files myself/I don't bother about structural look of my drives.
Current location suits no one.
I'm not convinced of that. I don't think it's particularly good, but I'm sure it's fine for a few people. *Lots* of people install Python in its default location on Windows: C:\Python24. As far as I can tell, there are no complaints. Google around to see if you can find any.
\libs\boost or %ProgramFiles%\boost will make at least *some* users comfortable.
The question is, will it make *more* people comfortable? I prefer not to change anything until we have an alternative that's definitively an improvement. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com