Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-17 18:15:40

On 6/17/17 10:30 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>>> So tl;dr; I strongly recommend placing all cmake complexity into
>>> runnable scripts which generate .cmake files to be include()d to avoid
>>> boilerplate, and keep the CMakeLists.txt etc completely free of any
>>> custom macros or functions.
>> Niall, could you please show how an idiomatic CMakeLists.txt file
>> should, in your opinion, look like, for a run-of-the-mill Boost library?
>> Pick some existing library to illustrate the point, such as for example
>> System, or SmartPtr, or even the simplest one, Assert. Or any other, if
>> you prefer.
> Sure, though I'm talking really vanilla cmake here. But I guess it will
> narrow the discussion by demonstrating idiomatic cmake 3. Too much cmake
> 2 still kicks around. I really wish cmake would kill off cmake2-isms, as
> in, refuse to use them.
> According to Jens'
>, System
> looks the most tractable. I'll see if I can find some hours to do it up,
> I can guarantee it won't be today nor tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow night
> after the kids are asleep.
> Niall

Hmmm - I would be curious if a CMake enthusiast took a look at the Safe
Numerics repo and commented on the CMake files listed there. I think
its pretty simple and canonical usage of CMake as it relates to a Boost
library. The only think I want to change is the existence of some code
in a CMake directory which I'll soon eliminate - but all in all it's
pretty simple. What would be missing from this for it it to meet
expectations of CMake Promotors?

Robert Ramey

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