Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Chris Glover (c.d.glover_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 13:47:23

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 04:01 Thomas Heller via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>
> Interesting that you bring this up ... If you are so much in favor of a
> declarative build system, we already have multiple. For example plain
> old make or Boost.Build. With that being said, wouldn't it be more
> viable to improve Boost.Build with:
>   - Better Documentation
>   - More examples
>   - Tight integration with CMake:
>      * Have Boost.Build generate XXXConfig.cmake and XXXTargets.cmake
>        files
>      * Have a CMake module that drives b2
> This would make everyone happy, wouldn't it? People who prefer
> declarative builds can stick to Boost.Build. Boost.Build would stop
> being "asocial" to CMake based projects.
>
>
For what it's worth, I would vote for this approach. I think it would solve
all or most of the end user problems for those that want plug and play with
cmake.

-- chris