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

Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-14 12:08:59

On 4/14/16 7:22 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/16 3:37 PM, P F wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The CMakeLists.txt file should be in the top-level directory.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmmm - says who?  I realize that this is the common way to do it.  But it
>> ends up sprinkling CMakeList.txt files all over the place.  Doing it the
>> way I've done makes supporting CMake much less intrusive and leaves the
>> "footprint" of CMake support on par with build (boost build) easily
>> permitting the user to select which he prefers.
>
>
> <http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Organization>
>
LOL - can you believe that in 13 years (since the copyright date 2003) 
I've never seen this - or at least never remember seeing this?

In any case, I had presumed that the "build" directory was for the 
exclusive use of boost build.  So I conclude than an alternative build 
system such as CMake should have it's own directory at the same level. 
This is what I recommend in the boost library incubator for libraries 
which want to support CMake in a way which doesn't conflict with the 
official boost way of doing things.  My recommendation was really 
motivated by

a) Making support for other build systems optional
b) Avoiding accidental coupling/conflict between different build systems.
e) Permitting build information for a particular system to be all in one 
place.

Had I been around at the beginning and had perfect vision 15 years into 
the future, I would have advocated for a structure
<library name>
   build
     boost_build
     ...
   doc
     html
     boostbook
     markup
     ..
   src
     ...
   test
     ...
   performance test
   ...

Actually the boost directory structure has worked pretty well as far as 
I'm concerned.  I wanted to preserve that.

Robert Ramey