Re: Regarding warnings

[Jesse Lovelace]

I disagree.  Even though the lib is for developers, end users still have 
to compile and install it if they want to link their favorite program 
(via *BSD ports, Gentoo Portage system, *insert your dependency tracking 
system here*).  In the windows world less of a big deal, the average 
user just downloads a bin.  However, I do not want to ask the users of 
my software to edit makefiles, etc, when they build.  The advantages of 
a good "packaging" system are undeniable.

Shawn Masters wrote:

        It has always been accessible to unix users.  Unpack and build.  I
think what you are talking about is packaging.  Considering this is aimed at
developers I think time would be better spent on code then packaging, but if
you feel inclined...
        73,
                Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Lovelace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Regarding warnings


I would have to say that this can be done but the present build system
that you are using does not allow for you to customize builds. Have you
considered using automake and autoconf for building on Linux systems? I
have created a Makefile.am file for crypto++ 5.1 for use with a project.
I can send that to you. Do you want it?
I would like it!  I would love to see Crypto++ be much more accessable
to Unix-type systems.  The FreeBSD port is a good start (it works well),
but rpm, deb, and Gentoo Portage would be stellar additions.  I had made
an autoconf/make release for 4.2 in tar.gz, but I'm not the best
autoconf hacker so it only offered basic functionality.