Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [EXTERNAL] Request for a "Policy Review" regarding 'CMakeLists.txt'
From: alex (alexhighviz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-20 08:08:11

>But if boost can’t make this trivial change to better support cmake, then it
>would be hopeless for future changes in boost for better cmake support.

I don't really have a stake in this, but I think this is the reason why this discussion is so awkward. It seems that 'CMakeLists.txt' is seen by both opponents and proponents as a foot in the door for future changes in Boost for better cmake support.

I can understand existing library maintainers being worried about having to support cmake in the future (or risk looking arcane). And likewise I can understand new library developers keen on using the widespread cmake (and reaching more users).

Sorry for butting in, but it seems you are being foot-fetishists and only indirectly discussing the real issue.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at