Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Michael Caisse (mcaisse-lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-16 15:15:46

On 5/16/16 09:47, Mikhail Strelnikov wrote:
> * Several companies have revealed that they are building Boost with
>> > their own custom CMake scripts. The suggested policy change would enable
>> > authors to relieve the infrastructure cost of their CMake users and unify
>> > how their library is built.
>> >
>> >
> I have opposite experience by replacing dozens of CMake scripts with one
> tiny Jamfile.
>> > * CMake is, by far, the most popular build system for C++. Allowing
>> > authors to support CMake users in addition to BJam will help the Boost
>> > ecosystem to grow and thrive by lowering the barriers to access.
>> >
>> >
> IMHO, CMakeLists.txt looks ugly as everything in camel starting with C.
> There are lots of Boost libraries having only "index.html" in their
> top-level directory, look, there is a pattern here and I'm not sure this
> should be uglified.
> I don't care too much about popularity, but Bjam/BB does support C++ much
> better than CMake. It has, for example, "usage-requirements".

Hi Mikhail (and others who might reply to this thread) -

This isn't a beauty pageant nor is it a popularity contest. David is
simply asking for community input concerning a change to the Boost
Guidelines. Despite beliefs on the technical merit of CMake versus
Boost.Build, CMake has been a leader in the open source community and
within many companies for a number of years.

CMake now has a variety of features, including 'usage-requirements',
that were inspired by Boost.Build and the work that the Boost community
has done with Kitware.

Lets try and keep this thread on topic. Thanks!

Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting

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