Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Jason Roehm (jasonr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-18 21:00:16
On 07/18/2017 04:33 PM, Zach Laine via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Chris Glover via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> internal package manager before I can upgrade boost. Currently, all I need
>> to do it write a script called from our custom build system that does
>> something like;
>> - call bootstrap
>> - call b2 with appropriate flags (this is the hard part)
>> - add the include path
>> - synthesize the link libraries
>> What's nice about this is that there are no dependencies -- everything is
>> completely self contained, and I like that.
> There is no reason why Boost+CMake can't do that too.
In order for it to be as self-contained as it is now, it would require
embedding the source code for CMake and any of its dependencies (I'm not
sure whether there any to speak of) into the Boost distribution. I agree
with Chris in that a big advantage of the current setup is that it is
not dependent on CMake being installed on the user's system already.
Even in today's almost-always-connected-to-a-package-manager world,
there are setups where it is cumbersome to say the least to install
additional packages (especially binaries) when they are needed.
I'm not a fan of Boost.Build either (I've used it almost exclusively in
the workflow described above), but it seems like this effort is "discard
one poorly documented, difficult to author/read build tool used by
relatively few people, adopt a poorly documented, difficult to
author/read build tool used by a lot more people". It's a shame that
there really isn't a better tool that is easy to read, write, extend,
and use across multiple platforms. At the risk of running into the
situation described in https://xkcd.com/927/, I hope something better
than CMake emerges someday.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk