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

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: paul (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 18:28:53

On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 18:53 +0300, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Niall Douglas wrote:
> > 
> > But I suspect this is cart before horse, mountain out of molehill stuff.
> > I think 98% of end users are wholly doing one of these three use cases:
> > 
> > 1. All shared Boost libraries.
> > 
> > 2. All static Boost libraries.
> > 
> > 3. Precompiled headers/Header only Boost libraries.
> Even if so, you still need to be able to answer the question "how do I link 
> to Asio in such a way so that its dependency System is 
> statically/dynamically linked?"Â 

Ultimately, I don't think we should go down this route of providing multiple
targets for the different build variants. This is not the way cmake is setup
to work. Cmake requires different build tree for the different build variants.
This will lead to further complications and frustrations for users.

In the future, we can look for ways to "innovate" cmake to support multiple
build variants, but for now we should stick to the standard cmake workflow if
we are going to support cmake.