Subject: Re: [boost] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 13:20:54
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 12:12:01 PM UTC-5, Robert Ramey wrote:
> On 5/18/16 10:02 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:29:07 AM UTC-5, Mikhail Strelnikov
> >>> No, not at all. Hana searches for Boost 1.59 _or above_, because it
> >>> supports
> >>> these versions. Obviously, the CMakeLists.txt file included with Hana
> >>> not
> >>> the CMakeLists.txt file that would be included with Hana if the Boost
> >>> community decided to make a move to CMake, which is not the case right
> >> now.
> >> I want to remind you that this started with "The requirement that these
> >> libraries not include a 'CMakeLists.txt' as part of their Boost
> >> distribution creates a maintenance burden for authors or otherwise
> >> usability of the independent distribution."
> >> But now it is obvious Hana will need two CMakeLists.txt and somehow
> >> is
> >> not "a maintenance burden".
> > I dont think that Louis is suggesting two cmake files. Rather, if boost
> > to move to cmake then the `find_package` could be used to find the
> > boost targets rather then relying on cmake to reverse engineer the
> > dependencies.
> > And, like I said in a previous email, a special `boost_find_package`
> > function
> > could be added(or we could override `find_package`) to search for
> > dependencies, which will allow the same cmake file for both standalone
> > superproject builds.
> I have to confess I'm not this.
Yes, of course, we are not proposing that boost convert to cmake. I am just
mentioning this, because adding a cmake to the top-level will not cause a
maintenance burden if boost decided to move to cmake.
> The original post on the thread stated:
> "We recommend and propose that the Boost Guidelines are modified to
> allow library authors, at their own discretion, to include a
> 'CMakeLists.txt' file in their library's top-level directory."
> Leave aside the fact this as far as I know this has never been
> prohibited. It seems that the request is that the stated policy
> incorporate the above text and that no one has actually argued against
> this. It seems to me that you're getting exactly what been asked for.
Rene has made it clear that it was prohibited by the guidelines, and
is opposed to it. Everyone else either supports it or is neutral on the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk