I'm glad to see this thread starting, I definitely think this is a good idea.
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uoeay3md4.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
"Pablo Aguilar" <pablo.aguilar@gmail.com> writes:
I believe that detecting which libraries need building would just be a matter of searching for a "build" subdirectory within a given
I see from reading the other thread that there seems to be an assumption that running the compiler on the users machine in order to install boost is a only way to install boost, because of the size of the resulting binaries. I'd like suggest a different model. On my machine, the compiled libraries + source (no object files) takes 700MB for all the models for one compiler (VC71 in this case). But, that's uncompressed. Compressed is a different story. When I compress my directory, I get a 90% reduction in size - more like 70MB. But that's still too large. However, a single compile model - ie, single threaded (debug+release) - takes only 4.6MB, which is easily downloadable. And all programming shops I've been to pick a particular compiler, programming model, and then stick with it, so the following idea should work: So, what you'd do it is write a installer stub that displayed a UI 1) queried for compiler model 2) queried for compile model (single threaded, multithreaded, static, dll etc) And then took that information and went off and downloaded the correct library. Seems simple enough to me. Much simpler than trying to recreate the UNIX auto-config behaviour on Windows, because Windows just isn't very robust that way. If you want, I can start to enumerate all of the different ways that the programmers in my shop manage to get it wrong, but it's a dreary list, and I've got the advantage of being able to walk over to their machines and poke around. Usually it's some sort of path issue, but that doesn't make it simple to diagnose. "Robert Mathews" <rmathews@envoyww.com> wrote in message news:d74j5c$7v6$1@sea.gmane.org... library's
directory.
Yep.
Don't know about configurations, though, maybe some simple parsing of the jamfiles would do..
Don't try to parse Jamfiles. It will be fragile at best and a disaster at worst. Think of Jamfile contents like C++ source code; you want a real C++ compiler in order to process that and make any sense of it. For Jamfiles you want to do any understanding within Boost.Build.
As far as JAM interacting with the installer program, why don't you have boost.JAM build the installation program? That way this installer isn't a red-haired bastard stepchild, but just another target in the Boost.build environment. Boost.build is certainly powerful enough!
Basically, I'd add a target after "install" that could grab the source and built libraries and feed those files into the installer script, creating a single installer output file (say, "boost_1.32.msi"). Then the boost maintainers could publish just that file on the web.
The reason I chose not to do it as an installer, is because I'm far more comfortable with developing GUIs with say, BCB, than I am with the installer programs I've tried.
Well .. the commercial installers take care of a lot of common issues that occur, adding a layer of reliability and tested code for the common tasks of installing files, editing paths, registry, and displaying a familar user interface. Are you really sure you'd want to stray off the beaten path here?
Comments, suggestions, requests are welcome.
Making Boost easier to install is crucial. I suggest that parties interested in contributing in some way take the thread to the jamboost list.
http://www.boost.org/more/mailing_lists.htm#jamboost
If people prefer we could establish a separate list, but I fear there might be a great deal of overlap.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost