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

Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: alainm (alain.miniussi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-16 15:16:21

On 16/05/2016 18:32, Michał Dominiak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The thing is, despite whether you believe bjam is better than CMake or not
> (please tell me how I can easily build Boost.MPI with Bjam without an
> additional config file that allows me to *just* do that?),
I have no Idea, could not find the bjam doc, could not find a useful 
description of how the function that add MPI tests works (it does not, 
really, bjam hangs on MPI tests on some of my platform, but it wasn't 
considered a problem...), could not find  the bjam... whatever the thing 
that extract the MPI options etc.
I dropped trying to contribute, I cannot waste days trying to understand 
how bjam tries to work *just for a single project*. Same thing goes for 
the doc BTW.

>   there's another
> very important aspect of the problem, and it's whether Boost will survive
> in the current C++ world, where everyone uses CMake. People writing code to
> build independent parts of Boost for static linking in their libraries or
> tools that are supposed to be portable, regardless of the target or
>
> This isn't really a discussion that needs to go deeply technical, but if
> you want to do that, by all means, please do point out what bjam does
> better than CMake - as in, please make a list of stuff that is so great in
> bjam,
Actually I don't really care. Whatever it is, it clearly wasn't enough 
to win the war outside of Boost despite its many years of existence.
And don't get now wrong, I *hate* CMake (just slightly less than I hate 
autotools). But I know time spent understanding CMake won't be 
completely wasted. And I can find documentation regarding how to use 
CMake, when bjam barely exists in the outside world.

Alain