Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] boost modularisation status?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-01 23:48:16

Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> this should be considered as a new tool (and in addition it needs
> CMAKE build). While I consider the modularization useful, I find that
> adding a new build system to Boost will need some official maintainers of
> the
> CMake files for each one of the Boost libraries until the library
> authors have taken the time to be familiar with the new build system.
> Of course, this will imply that we need regular testers for both build
> systems which will be time consuming
> Resuming, I think that we need a formal review for CMake build once it
> is able to build the whole Boost libraries.
> Is CMake build ready for review? If no, what is missing, not working
> yet, ...?

I was interested in modularization because I wanted to make a small library
and have it
self contained so it doesn't have to be in the boost tree, but would have
option in the future. Then I came upon the cmake stuff and asked the
Then I thought I remembered that the cmake stuff was in the boost tree
but when I looked I didn't find it there. I found it in the GIT tree.

So as things stand now, cmake build/test of boost is not part part
of boost itself. It's not a required tool. So I can't see why a review
be necessary. What if it fails the review - would I be prevented from
using it on my own machine?

If things evolve and a significant number of people start to prefer it over
the current system, we can look at the issue as to whether we have to choose
and if so what should we choose.

a totally separate issue - the GIT tree seems to clone the trunk - wouldn't
it be better if it cloned the release branch?

Robert Ramey

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at