Re: [boost] CMake and Boost Build tests

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake and Boost Build tests
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-27 02:51:30

On 7/26/2017 4:36 PM, Roger Leigh via Boost wrote:
> On 26/07/17 21:28, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>> On 7/26/2017 3:33 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
>>> On 7/26/17 11:49 AM, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
>>>> optionally, Boost Build is used to build the documentation using a 
>>>> quickbook, boostbook, doxygen toolset to generate html and pdf files. 
>>>
>>> Personally, I could never make this tool chain work despite a large 
>>> investment of effort.  I gave up on doxygen and quickbook after 
>>> concluding them to be essentially non-functional.  I did manage to 
>>> use the xml tools loaded with boost tools along with some downloaded 
>>> FOP, a version of XMLMind to create toolchain which is about 100 
>>> times better and 1/100 as complex as the boost one for creating 
>>> documents. So you're life will be better when you're forced to leave 
>>> these behind.
>>
>> I heartily disagree. Using quickbook and doxygen is a no-brainer for 
>> me, but there is no point of debating this. Are both perfect ? No. But 
>> using them makes creating documentation supremely easy.
>>
>> I did say that there is no Boost requirement for creating 
>> documentation using Boost Build. Some documentation is straight html. 
>> But for those libraries that do go the quickbook and doxygen way using 
>> Boost Build we need a CMake way of doing this if that is what the 
>> Boost Steering Committee is mandating.
> 
> https://github.com/ome/ome-files-cpp/blob/master/docs/doxygen/CMakeLists.txt 
> 
> https://github.com/ome/ome-files-cpp/blob/master/cmake/DoxygenCheck.cmake
> 
> are one way to generate doxygen docs.  I'm sure something similar to 
> this could be made to meet Boost's needs.

I certainly hope so since the creation of docs using the 
quickbook/boostbook/doxygen toolsets via a Boost Build jam file is 
pretty flexible and easy, once you understand the jam file structure for it.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Roger