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

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: paul (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-22 17:18:27

On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 17:35 +0100, Paul A. Bristow via Boost wrote:
> > 
> > -----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
> <snip>
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> +1
> Â 
> > 
> > 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

There is this:

https://cmake.org/cmake-tutorial/