Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 08:38:33
On 21 June 2017 at 10:01, Thomas Heller via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 06/20/2017 11:56 PM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>>> I'll ask again: do you have any reference to those statements? The
>>> official cmake docs seem to disagree about this specific case.
>> The cmake docs are updated on a git pull request basis by volunteers as
>> and when someone feels they need to be updated. They are, in general,
>> woefully out of date. And as I mentioned here before, Stephen never
>> finished the cmake3 documentation effort he began due to changes in
>> personal circumstance (returning home to Ireland).
> To be honest, and forgive my skepticism, I find this to be not a good
> sign of something that is to suppose to dominate the industry:
> - There is no real documentation available on the "best practices" you
> advertise, they are told based on anecdotes
I've been CMake user for almost a decade and the lacking of up to date
documented best practices, idiomatic recipes has been quite frustrating
since day one.
CMake mailing list is actually the only source where one ask for/can find
those , but then there is no way to verify that received solutions
actualk present the canonical CMake way
Especially, none of such answers make it to the CMake docs.
 eg. https://cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2010-March/035596.html
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk