Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?
From: Hans Dembinski (hans.dembinski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-16 13:32:18

> 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.
I try to follow everything on the boost incubator website, that's
probably why you find your advice reflected in what I am doing. :) The
reviewer's time is a sparse resource, so it makes sense to bring new
people up to speed with the Boost Incubator and the guidelines published
on that site. I find that quite useful.

> 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.
I hope this is not a misunderstanding. I wrote my first message to agree
with you that it is not weird or very awkward to have just one
CMakeLists.txt in the build directory, even if it is a bit non-standard.
I can't say much about the more complex arguments brought forward in
this thread.

> Good luck with your submission.
Thank you. :) I am still writing documentation, but I expect to finish soon.

Hans Dembinski

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