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, MichaÅ Dominiak wrote:
> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk