Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Daniel Wallin wrote:
>
>> Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> some things that BBv2 can't do (my favorite:
graphical installers),
>> Can it create graphical installers that are
actually useful to us? For
>> example, can the installer download the binaries
one by one rather
>> than
>> including all of them in the exe?
>
> I don't recall seeing this feature, but I don't know
for certain.
>
>> If not, there's very little that indicate this
would be any easier
>> to do
>> with CMake than with BBv2. It's not like it's
impossible, or even very
>> hard, to output and build NSIS code.
>
> Well, except that CMake builds installers for many
kinds of platforms
> already. The incremental cost of adding the feature you
mention to
> CMake/CPack (assuming it isn't there) is far less than
the cost of
> extending BBv2 with support for NSIS, Mac OS X
packages, RPMs, Debian
> packages, etc.
I thought we where talking about Cmake? Is Cpack the
installer add-on?
Like Ctest is the testing add-on? So we aren't talking about
Boost
adopting Cmake, but adopting Cmake+Ctest+Cpack. That's three
tools now.
Am I confused? Will Boost developers be confused also? Will
Boost users
be confused?
Is the installer generator taking a separate abstract
install
description, or is it using the Cmake descriptions and
deciding what to
install from that? If the latter, I see no way one would
ever use it as
the install process is never the same as the build process.
--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software
.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
|
