Re: [boost] Cmake

Subject: Re: [boost] Cmake
From: P F (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-24 16:34:38

> On Jun 24, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Rene Rivera via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> So what's the reason you prefer (at least in that context) building
>> boost as an integral part of another project, rather than referring to
>> it as an external (pre-installed) dependency ?
>> 
> 
> Depends on the project... But generally because I need precise control over
> the compilation variant and want it to be uniform over all the external
> dependencies.

But isn’t that what a package manager does? The point of scenario #1 is that it enables a package manager or dependency tool to do this.

> That precise control offers the advantage of isolated and
> predictable building for the project regardless of who builds it (other
> devs and CI).

Yea, but for open-source libraries and distros, they will never build the software exactly the same way. It can be built in a lot of different scenarios. This is why autotools came about to handle this.

In fact, boost also follows scenario #1, as it doesn’t build zlib or bzip2 as part of its build, but rather tries to use a prebuilt binary.