Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: David Sankel (camior_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-17 04:04:01

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Edward Diener via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> As has been pointed out by many people Boost Build does a number of things
> for building, testing, and creating documentation for a library which CMake
> does not do, whereas I have never seen any evidence of a single thing which
> CMake does which Boost Build cannot do. So in effect you are asking
> developers to give up a superior build product for one that is vastly more
> popular.

That is a correct assessment.

> I have even asked about a CMake deficiency on the CMake mailing list, only
> to receive no answer at all. That is why I have the impression that CMake
> deficiencies are just ignored.

Uhm, this happens with any Open Source project with a big enough user base.
Can you link to your post?

I do not want to debate. I am still waiting for anyone to show me CMake
> building all Boost libraries, including builds, tests, and documentation,
> with the same results that Boost Build currently does. Anyone ? Otherwise
> this endless suggestion of moving to CMake, because it is so popular with
> the general programming world, seems an absolute dead end to me.
> BTW I am no great lover of bjam syntax or the undocumented internal
> complexities of the Boost Build system. But unless I can be shown a CMake
> system that can practically do what Boost Build does for maintaining
> libraries I believe your suggestion is a non-starter.

This sounds a lot like "do the work first and then I'll tell you whether or
not your time was wasted". This is a significant time and probably monetary
investment, something worthy of discussion *before* the work is done.

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