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

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-19 19:51:39

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:27:33 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
>
> Le 20/05/16 à 00:46, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:21:21 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 20/05/16 à 00:01, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:43:01 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Le 19/05/16 à 19:57, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
> >> [snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>> directory
> >>> of the individual library repo at the library author's discretion. We 
> are
> >>> not
> >>> 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
> > possibility?
>
> 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 
> policies.
>
> 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.
>

Well if boost cannot even make this small change towards improving support 
for
cmake, then it obviously would be best to fork boost. However, a final
decision hasn't been made on the matter yet, so lets not get carried away.
 

> >> 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).
>

enforcing != pushy