Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'

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

-- 
Michael Caisse
Ciere Consulting
ciere.com