Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-19 16:30:38

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:24 AM, paul via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> 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.
>

Like I said it should be *documented*. The dependencies, and flags should
documented some place humanly readable such that the users can make their
build system of choice do the right thing. Additionally all Boost library
authors should strive to make their code portable to any, and all, compiler
flags. If they can't, they should document the limitations where known.

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