Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-17 12:04:16
On 17 May 2016 at 17:57, Thijs (M.A.) van den Berg <thijs_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 17 May 2016, at 17:35, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]>
> >> On Tuesday, 17 May 2016 18:24:36 MSK Sam Kellett wrote:
> >>> On 17 May 2016 at 16:05, Andrey Semashev
> >> <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>> I should say that many
> >>> opensource projects practice a separate directory for build-related
> > stuff
> >>> and it doesn't
> >>> hurt anyone (quite the contrary, I'd say).
> >> which ones?
> > From the ones I have locally: TBB, openh264, webrtc, libvpx,
> > libresiprocate. Well, ok, some of them have a configure script or a
> > single Makefile at the root directory, but most of the build stuff is
> put in
> > a subdirectory.
> The way I use CMake and see other use it is indeed to have a single
> CMakeFiles.txt config file in the root, and then do "out of source"
One example of project that provide CMake support among other things
without having CMake scripts in it's root directory is the recent versions
of protobuf: https://github.com/google/protobuf
I didn't see any problem so far with this setup.
I don't understand why it's problematic to have cmake scripts outside the
I think any build system that impose a particular layout
is a problem.
(my 2cents to this complicated discussion)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk