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

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Raffi Enficiaud (raffi.enficiaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 19:11:31

Le 20/05/16 à 00:55, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
>
>
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:29:14 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
>>
>> Le 20/05/16 à 00:09, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> There is already library's that do this(such as hana and compute),
>>
>> This is not an argument.
>>
>>> so there
>>> hasn't been a technical problem with the tooling.
>>
>> Nobody said there is one, people rather said there is no technical issue
>> in having your CMakeLists.txt in ./build or ./cmake or ./anyothersubdir
>> (something that you seems to omit quite often).
>>
>
> Yes there is a technical as well as a usability issue with hiding the cmake
> file in some directory. This causes problems with other tools. You will no
> longer be able to install a boost library with `cget install boostorg/hana`.
> Instead the user will have to manually download the repo, unpack the
> archive,
> and then do `cget install hana/build`. I find that unacceptable.

To be honest, I do not care at all about cget. I would like rather to 
see cget support another way of working.

In terms of hiding, whether it is at the top-level directory or any 
subdirectory does not change much: it is buried deep down in a big tree 
in both cases.

If someone wants to distribute his library outside of boost, what about 
having the same patch system as for eg. Debian packages wrt. upstream?

> Library authors who support cmake  do not want their support treated as a
> second-class citizen.

Yet, the primary focus of a boost library is not its good cmake support.

>>> However, we would like the
>>> wording in the guidelines to state in a more explicit manner that this
>> is
>>> acceptable in order to avoid possible future problems.
>>
>> There is an *IF* missing there.
>>
>
> Where?

At the very beginning: *IF* there is some agreement (I am not in a 
position to say what is an agreement) and the policies are changed 
according to what you want. Your sentence [1] suggest that having a 
library top-level CMakeLists.txt is already granted.

Raffi

[1] Sentence: "However, we would like the wording in the guidelines to 
state in a more explicit manner that this is acceptable in order to 
avoid possible future problems."