Re: [boost] Cmake

Subject: Re: [boost] Cmake
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-26 19:46:56

On 26.06.2017 13:36, paul wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 13:35 -0400, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, I would like the maintenance cost to be just adding source files to a
> list somewhere. Of course, for header-only libraries its even easier.
>
> Although, there are libraries like Boost.Python or Boost.Context that have
> more complicated build infrastructure, but the nice thing about cmake is that
> there is a much larger community to help with the maintenance cost rather than
> relying on a few Boost.Build gurus.

That's definitely true. But ultimately, it comes down to the maintainer
or the library's own developer community. Whenever users try to build
Boost.Python and run into issues, they are submitting issues to *our*
tracker, and I hate having to tell them to go ask for help in a
different community because I'm unable to help myself.

        Stefan

-- 
      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...