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

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 23:46:00

On 21 June 2017 at 23:21, Niall Douglas via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> The real problem is when the end user doesn't want the specific
> combination of hl-sl-dl chosen by the library devs for them. What I was
> saying what to supply all-::hl, all-::sl and all-::dl where possible,
> and that probably maps onto what 98% of end users will want. The number
> which want some weird mashup for ::hl, ::sl and ::dl variants is likely
> very low.

I guess this might be a stupid question, but what would the 2% of
users who want something different do?