Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-22 17:04:01
On 22.06.2017 12:04, Edward Diener via Boost wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. The Fact that we are having this discussion is ample
demonstration that a move to "idiomatic" CMake is not a good idea, at
least not for the stated reason.
And to add that: Being among those who complained about the existing
build system, as I'm unable to fix related issues when people file
Boost.Python issues that are about its build logic, I'd love to move to
a system that *I* understand and can help fix. But CMake is not that, so
I'm not supportive of the move.
> 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.
Really ? What about those end users who submit bug reports (to your
library) originating from issues they encounter with cmake ? How will
you support them ?
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk