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

Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-16 12:13:24

On 4/15/16 11:45 AM, Hans Dembinski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to this list, so let me start by greeting everyone. :) I would
> like to add something to this CMake discussion.
>
> I have a project "histogram" that I am currently preparing for the Boost
> Incubator. I am using the standard directory structure prescribed for
> Boost, and I use CMake for the build. There is only one CMakeLists.txt
> in the build directory. It is true that there is usually a top-level
> CMakeLists.txt, but it does not have to be there.
>
> I build like this
>
> cd /path/to/build
> cmake /path/to/project/build
> make
>
> ...where /path/to/project is the top-level directory of the project.
>
> In the CMakeLists.txt in /path/to/project/build, I use a relative path
> to locate the source files.
>
> add_executable(some_lib ../src/some_lib.cpp)
>
> etc.
>

This sounds similar if not identical to the advice I give in the Boost 
Library Incubator.  I came to that advice after spending a lot of time 
investigating and experimenting with all the build tool options.  I 
found them all too complex, too fragile, and not well documentated.  Of 
course I trolled the net looking for information and advice as well.  I 
came to my advice as the most expedient, simplest way to help other 
users test your library with the minimum of fuss for all involved.  That 
was my goal and I think I achieved it.

Note that I didn't try to solve the "problem" of finding a replacement 
for boost build.

Having said this and participated in this discussion, I'm now inclined 
to update my advice on this topic so that the method I propose will be 
closer to the more common way of using CMake.  I think I can do this now 
while still avoiding decent into CMake arcana.  Of course it still won't 
meet the standards of CMake gurus, but they're not addressing my problem.

Good luck with your submission.

Robert Ramey