Subject: Re: [boost] Cmake
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-25 17:35:41
On 24.06.2017 13:12, P F wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost
>> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>> While I can see that some people would like the extra control that
>> provides, I also see lots of problems with this approach.
>> (And the fact that some of Boost is header-only is entirely irrelevant
>> to my argument. If there is nothing to build there is nothing to build.)
> Both school of thoughts are in disagreement about how to build their
> dependencies, and believe the other school of thought has lots of
> problems. Rather than boost try to pick just one(and alienate the
> other users), with cmake we can easily support both scenarios.
That's an illusion. My point is precisely that we can't "easily support"
both, as it requires from all maintainers to understand all the build
infrastructure. It's precisely the lack of encapsulation that causes
this overhead. I'd be happy to include additional files in my library if
it wasn't for the implied maintenance cost.
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...