Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-18 04:14:08

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:55 PM, P F via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>
> > On Jun 17, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Robert Ramey via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, this example makes bjam look much easier than CMake which I
> believe conflicts with the original premise which motivated the proposal.
>
> I don’t think its a fair comparison to bjam as its not doing the same
> thing. The bjam files in boost for header-only libraries do not
> individually install headers or usage requirements.
>

I think it is at minimum relevant, and mostly fair. The argument for using
an external non-Boost build system, regardless of which one is the current
flavor, is that it is externally supported. And hence no one at Boost needs
to write a bunch of code to make use of it for the Boost use case. But if
there needs to be a significant amount of code in Boost for the build
system the justifications for switching loose considerable appeal. It
doesn't matter where the code is. If it's in individual libraries or
collected in a common Boost module, it's still effort to maintain
comparable to the effort of maintaining b2.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail