Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Louis Dionne (ldionne.2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-18 21:33:03

> > I intentionally left it unspecified how these files would be generated
and 
> > installed.
> 
> What is actionable in your proposal then? What is it you suggest we - by 
> this I mean library developers, who the library guidelines target -
> actually 
> do? 

What's actionable is that if the Boost library requirements contain this,
you'll have to go implement it in your own library. There you go, now we've
taken care of all the maintained libraries. For the unmaintained ones, we
have a community maintenance team that has commit privilege to them, and I'm
sure we can find people to submit pull requests. Let me get the ball
rolling; I volunteer to do the work for Boost.MPL and Boost.ConceptCheck.
There's now 8 libraries remaining:

[ ] Boost.DateTime
[ ] Boost.DisjointSet
[ ] Boost.DynamicBitset
[ ] Boost.Format
[ ] Boost.Function
[ ] Boost.Logic
[ ] Boost.PropertyMap
[ ] Boost.Signals (which is deprecated)
[ ] Boost.Tokenizer
[x] Boost.MPL
[x] Boost.ConceptCheck

Louis

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-moving-Boost-to-CMake-tp4695623p4695741.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.