Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-18 16:15:02
On 18.06.2017 11:20, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 6/18/17 7:30 AM, P F via Boost wrote:
>>> 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 CMakeâ.
>> I believe the proposal was to move to cmake using cmakeâs best
>> practices for building, testing, and supporting `find_package`.
> LOL - so it seems that neither one of knows what the proposal actually
> is. I think it's time for the promoters of this proposal to step back
> and agree on some more specific/concrete proposal that can be
> discussed in a productive way - probably on a new thread. Probably
> with a titile like one of the following:
> a) proposal - Add support for CMake for building boosts and running tests
> b) proposal - Add support for CMake to make Boost more user friendly
> by ...
> c) proposal - add your own here ...
Thanks for trying hard to make this discussion efficient and
constructive. I have followed your suggestion and written my own little
"proposal". It may be lacking in some specifics, though I refrained from
putting too much into it precisely to avoid the discussion once again
being derailed by technical details. Those can all be sorted out easily
once the consensus is there.
It's really sad to see how much effort gets wasted on this list over the
years as ambitious people propose one idea or another, but eventually
get dragged down by the community's inability to "get their act
together" and move in almost any direction, leaving us with the status quo.
Let's keep trying... !
> And this proposal should start with a succinct goal or motivation
> Then describe the actions proposed to support the above. It's helpful
> it describes who would undertake which actions - library maintainers,
> some Developer, Some other player like the developers of CMake itself,
> Some sort of plan/description of how this would would proceed - All at
> once - some proposals might not make sense unless applied to all
> libraries as a requirement. Others might work as an option for each
> Sorry I can't be more specific - but of course I'm not the one making
> such a proposal.
> Robert Ramey
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk