Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-17 22:15:29

I fully support any effort to make cmake the de-facto build system for
boost. When used with Ruslo/hunter it is also an excellent package
management system. When used with the polly toolchains (also by ruslo) it
solves all cross-compilation problems.

Cmake's syntax is garbage but it is actively maintained, well supported and
understandable. Bjam on the other hand is indecipherable, undocumented
garbage. If you've ever wondered why more people don't contribute to boost,
it's that.

R

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 at 22:10, Robert Ramey via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>