Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-18 05:08:00
On 6/17/17 8:55 PM, P F via Boost wrote:
>> 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.
> I agree which is why I am writing cmake modules to help make this more straightforward.
>> * only needs to run tests
>> * users need only point to the header library.
> A header-only library needs to do more than this. It needs to install the headers as well as the usage requirements(through exporting the target)
Hmmm - I never felt the need for this. I just copy a library to my
system and add the directory to the list of directories to be searched.
What could possible be easier than that.
>> Actually, this example makes bjam look much easier than CMake which I believe conflicts with the original premise which motivated the proposal.
> I donât 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.
Hmmm - Now I don't know what the proposal is. I thought it was to
replace bjam. I don't know what else it needs to do. I see CMake as an
alternative way of building and testing libraries. I don't see this
impacting users in any way. I thought I knew what is being proposed but
now I don't think I do. Perhaps this proposal should be something more
specific than "Moving Boost to CMake".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk