Re: [boost] Boost building with CMake

From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-11 16:08:03

"Douglas Gregor" <doug.gregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:B73C08B4-0308-4A07-8E72-5B533353E140_at_osl.iu.edu...
> On May 11, 2007, at 12:53 AM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>>> Then we do the Windows port, and a few minor improvements to the
>>> CMakeList
>>> file
>>> to find dependencies and the whole shebang is building cross-platform
>>> under
>>> Visual Studio.  Then we try out KDevelop, and a simple `cmake -G
>>> KDevelop3`
>>> provides us with project files with zero additional effort.  We
>>> now have
>>
>> I did not get it from above statement
>>
>> Did Cmake build your project or just created "project file"?
>
> *Sigh*. This is basic CMake knowledge, and it's been said at least 10
> times in this thread. CMake is a makefile generator. It generates
> makefiles/project files/solutions/whatever for your native build
> environment.

Well, then I don't believe it's acceptable in this form. With more than 
dozen of different configurations to support I don't really looking 
favourable on learning all the native build tools.

> Once you've configured CMake for a particular compiler/platform,
> you'll rarely need to directly run it again. Just run your normal
> build tool ("make", or "nmake", or hit F7, or whatever) and your
> project will build. If what's been said about the CMake model does
> not make sense to you, please go download it and try building a small
> project with it; you'll get much better insight than we can give you
> through e-mail.

Though I do understand why this design might be attractive, I don't think 
it's what boost should be moving to.

>>> CMake documentation is confusing.  CMake has been a moving
>>> (improving)
>>> target
>>> during the past couple years.  As a result, there seems to be a
>>> lot of
>>> conflicting documentation floating around.
>>
>> Hmm. We REALLY don't want to get into another "Build system as moving
>> target" situation. Again.
>
> The CMake developers have put a lot of effort into maintaining
> backward compatibility. So, while the "best way" do to a particular
> thing changes as CMake evolves, the "old way" still continues to
> work. Remember, the opposite of a moving target is a stagnant target.
> We want the ongoing maintenance and improvements that CMake brings.

Good. Don't forget to let them know ;).

IMO We should deal with this as we do with any other submission. Someone 
needs to bring it up and we should review it and make a decision.

Gennadiy