Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-17 20:10:03

On 6/17/17 11:42 AM, P F via Boost wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> * It should not use global `include_directories`.
> 
> * Its not necessary to put CMakeLists.txt in every directory with modern cmake.
> 
> * There is no installation, and there is no support for `find_package(SafeNumerics)` which can provide a cmake target for downstream user to use. Nor does it provide a cmake target for people to use with `add_subdirectory` either.
> 
> * Tests are always built even when the user sets `BUILD_TESTING` to off.
> 
> Boost.Hana is much better example of modern cmake.

Thanks for looking at this - the comments above really make me see that 
even having spend a lot of time trying to figure out CMake - there is 
still a lot I don't know.  I have questions on each point above, but 
they are not relevant to this thread so I'll move on.

I also looked at Hana usage of CMake.  I have to say it's quite 
off-putting for a library author to be required to learn a huge amount 
of CMake lore and prepare 500 lines of script across several files just 
to submit a header only library which.

* only needs to run tests
* users need only point to the header library.

Actually, this example makes bjam look much easier than CMake which I 
believe conflicts with the original premise which motivated the proposal.

Robert Ramey