Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?
From: Stephen Kelly (hello_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-13 19:55:19

P F wrote:

>> What I proposed in that thread is for the benefit of boost users and is
>> completely compatible with current boost community values (does not
>> propose moving away from, which is a too-controversial
>> topic).
> Yes, but it seems to be just putting lipstick on a pig.

I definitely don't agree.

> Boost should move
> to being able to be built in a simple and modular way and not require
> esoteric build tools, which will be a greater benefit to boost users.

Do you have data on how many users care about how boost is built? I'm
curious. Which categories of boost users care?

If you port a library to cmake, will people using boost from the ubuntu
package get the cmake package files?

Do you have some kind of plan? Some gradual switch of libraries, of
packaging processes and tools and release processes and tools? Some point
when building with cmake is the default, then the only way? How long will
that take? Because only after that process is completed can a user depend on
cmake package files being present, and that's when the boost+cmake *starts*
to improve.

I really wonder what a viable plan along the lines you are thinking would
look like.

In my mind, the only way to make the boost+cmake experience better for users
in a finite time frame is to generate the package files with
That way users of package managers will get the cmake files and they will be

>> Be careful - you're about to get into a discussion of what a dependency
>> is. :)
> What I mean by dependency is what is needed to fully build, test, and
> install the library. I think that is pretty straightforward.

I didn't mean a discussion with me :). I do think there's more relevant
nuance to it than that, but let's not bother getting into it.



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