Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Raffi Enficiaud (raffi.enficiaud_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 19:27:13
Le 20/05/16 Ã 00:46, Paul Fultz II a Ã©crit :
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:21:21 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
>> Le 20/05/16 Ã 00:01, Paul Fultz II a Ã©crit :
>>> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:43:01 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
>>>> Le 19/05/16 Ã 19:57, Paul Fultz II a Ã©crit :
>>>>> We are saying its inconvenient and we want it changed.
>>>> But... are you asking for a change, or are you trying to enforcing it?
>>> We are asking for a change to allow CMakeLists.txt at the top-level
>>> of the individual library repo at the library author's discretion. We are
>>> trying to force library authors to put a cmake there, that is up to the
>>> library author.
>> Let me rephrase: are you trying to enforce the possibility for having
>> the CMakeLists.txt at the top-level directory of individual libraries?
> I don't quite understand what you are asking. How do we enforce a
The "possibility" in mention here is the change you are asking in the
policies (possibility of having the library top-level CMakeLists.txt).
"enforce the possibility for having the CMakeLists.txt at the top-level
directory of individual libraries" means enforcing the change in the
People have expressed their preferences that are or are not in
contraction with your proposal. It is hence questionable that those
change would happen in the policy, so I am asking if you consider not
having those change is an option you have considered so far.
>> Or are you asking if it would be possible, and accept any other
>> conclusion than the one you want?
> I think not being able to have a cmake at the top-level is unacceptable.
This last sentence is part of what I consider enforcing (pushy).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk