Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: paul (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-19 16:24:15

On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 07:58 +0100, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
> 
> On 19/06/2017 00:41, Rene Rivera via Boost wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Richard Hodges <hodges.r_at_[hidden]>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This is a sorry state of affairs for the worlds most popular c++
> > > library.
> > > It should be easy, no, automatic to include boost. After all, c++
> > > without
> > > boost is like [insert idiom about useless things here].
> > > 
> > I've mentioned this some number of times in the past decade or more..
> > Using
> > Boost should be as easy as dropping the source code into your project (and
> > hence use your build system) and build as needed for your project.  And
> > I've asserted that libraries that don't document how to do that should
> > consider having a bug.
> +1, the vast majority of libraries (that need building) are "just bunch 
> of source files".  I routinely build them outside of bjam (or anything 
> else for that matter) because it's easier to include them in Visual 
> Studio solutions that way - at least for me.

I don't think globbing source files is the problem. The problem is linking in
the dependencies and possible compiler flags.Â