Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Cmake
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-25 12:24:11

David Sankel wrote:
> > I've done a proof of concept for (2), which can be seen here:
> >
> >
> Thanks for contributing this Peter. Could you summarize the differences
> between your proof of concept and Niall's? I think one point of difference
> is the support for a CMake-based installation of libraries. Is there
> anything else?

Mine is more or less vanilla CMake, without separate targets for
static/shared, and with installation support. I also don't list the header
files, just the sources. It's more like Paul's

and Stephen Kelly and Daniel Pfeiffer's

All that is however about the (effective) content of CMakeLists.txt, and
this is not the main, or at least not the only, focus of the demo. It also
shows how I think things could be organized so that library authors do not
need to maintain the cmake infrastructure (short of adding or removing a
source file from the list of sources - something that can also be automated,
although I don't see it as that high a burden, as it requires no
cmake-specific knowledge.)

Unless, of course, the author does want to maintain the cmake infrastructure
himself, in which case he'll simply not use default.cmake, but write his

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at