Re: [boost] Cmake

Subject: Re: [boost] Cmake
From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-24 15:45:55

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Robert Ramey via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 6/24/17 7:20 AM, Vinnie Falco via Boost wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost
>> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> I've done a proof of concept for (2), which can be seen here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/pdimov/boost-cmake-demo-2
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for investing the time to produce this demo.
>>
>> I have identified the following (separate) scenarios:
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if its listed, but I am very interested in generating
>> Visual Studio project files for certain Boost projects. I would be
>> more motivated to help with the maintenance of any Boost library for
>> which I can use my IDE, since I can set breakpoints and I am generally
>> proficient with it.
>>
>
> First of all, I'd like to say that root post of this thread is very
> helpful in clarifying the options and costs and value for each one.
>
> FWIW - I'm interested in this as well.  I used the VS IDE for maintaining
> the Boost.Serialization library.  It was very convenient to build, test,
> (especialy) debug the library.  But it was a huge pain to setup and
> maintain for the hundreds targets.  I swithed to Mac as my main development
> platform.  It comes with Xcode.  Setting this up to build, test and debug
> the library was even worse on this platform. Having spent some time
> figuring out CMake to compile information/advice on the incubator, I was
> able to make CMake files to build the serialization library.  I had to deal
> with CMake quirks, FindBoost quirks etc.  But now I can easily create a new
> XCode project from the CmakeLists.txt files which is a huge relief.  It's
> much easier than trying to use XCode directly.  The CMake files them selves
> are that complex - after you spend a lot of time fiddling.  But now that's
> done and mostly a bad memory.  The CMakeList.txt files are part of the
> Boost Serialization Library distribution so anyone is free to look at it to
> see what I had to do.  I would hope that these file could also generate IDE
> project files for VS as well as Eclipse with no changes.  But I'm not in a
> position to test that proposition.  Note that this links with other boost
> libraries created with b2.
>
> So I would add 7) or 8):  Use CMake to generate an IDE project to
> build/test a particular library.
>

I've seen the innards, surface, and operation of the VS and Xcode projects
generated by cmake and I'd loath to to use them. Hence I ask.. Would it be
better to generate those with something else? Especially something that
maps more directly to the b2 definitions. I don't know what else exist to
do this. But just wondering since we are talking about a much smaller
audience than N<5.

-- 
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail