Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-22 16:35:41
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener via Boost
> Sent: 22 June 2017 17:05
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Edward Diener
> Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
> On 6/22/2017 7:06 AM, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Robert Ramey via Boost
> >> Sent: 21 June 2017 16:23
> >> To: Chris Glover via Boost
> >> Cc: Robert Ramey
> >> Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
> > So personally, I am now fairly happy using bjam/b2, after years of swearing and gnashing of teeth.
> > Compared to the creators, I'm oligoneuronic
> No definition in my "Webster's Third New International Dictionary", I
> don't have the OED, don't recall the word in literature, find only
> 'Oligoneuron' on the web about a genus of flowering plants, so a
> definition would be appreciated as my own neurons are not firing enough
> connections to understand it. Perhaps it means an oligarchy of neurons,
> whatever that is supposed to be.
OK - I confess - made that up ;-)
oligo - few
neuronic - neurons
(with the benefit of dimly remembered Latin - I was extruded forcibly though O level by my Mother who had a Classics degree -
oligarchy - rule by a few people, and chemistry - oligomers - polymers with a few mers)
But it seems a useful term of (self-)abuse?
> What I am really afraid of is not that Boost end-users do not like
> CMake, because obviously most programmers appear to love it, but that
> Boost will just be substituting one build system under its own control,
> which few really understand, for another build system controlled
> elsewhere, which more evidently understand but whose usage even more
> people disagree about.
> However if we can provide CMake for end-users from our bjam files,
> without tortuous work, I am all for it as long as I personally don't
> have to understand it. I find reading the CMake docs, such as they are,
> much more incomprehensible than the Boost Build docs.
What should I be reading?
https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.9/ dumps me in at the deep end and leaves me at "Huh?"
should I invest in
Mastering CMake Paperback - January 16, 2015 by Ken Martin (Author), Bill Hoffman (Author) $50
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 (0) 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk