Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?

Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-14 10:56:23

Paul Fultz II wrote:

> If boost ever wants to support the standard `make && make check && make 
> install` with cmake then this will be a cycle.

OK. Why is having a cycle unacceptable?

Ah, wait, I get it, you can't 'make install' before you 'make check', and 
you can't 'make check' before 'make install'-ing both libraries first.

Persuading people to support this will be... difficult. The standard answer 
is that the tools need to be made smarter.

bpm doesn't have a problem with cycles because it doesn't have a separate 
install step.

Your 'make check' step would need to be able to find the downloaded 
dependency in-place, without relying on it being 'make install'-ed first. So 
when you do cget boostorg/config, it would need to download Config, Core, 
Assert, Predef, Type Traits, and whatever else is required, then 'make 
check' at the download location using the downloaded libraries. Which is 
probably out of scope for cget, as it's generic and this workflow is 
boost-specific.

How does cget find the dependencies now by the way?