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.