Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 02:03:55
On 7/18/2017 3:27 PM, Louis Dionne via Boost wrote:
>> On 7/18/2017 2:08 PM, Louis Dionne via Boost wrote:
>>> I can't speak for the Steering Committee as a whole, but I believe that
>>> basically any solution that solves the above two problems would satisfy
>>> the intent of the message that was posted.
>> In that case why not have said that Boost libraries and tools will be
>> supporting CMake, which I think is fair enough given the wish to form a
>> consensus, but that Boost Build will continue to be developed/supported
>> for those libraries and tools that still want to rely on it as an
> Because it's not the SC's job to decide whether Boost.Build should be
> dropped or not, and the details of how CMake should be supported. If
> folks still want to work on Boost.Build, nothing prevents them from
> doing so. Boost.Build may or may not be mandatory for being considered
> a Boost library going forward, but that's one thing that needs to be
> determined by the community.
When you originally write:
"Therefore, we, the Steering Committee, announce to the Boost community
our desire and intent to move Boostâs build system to CMake for users
and developers alike."
it is interpreted by me that the plan for adopting CMake for Boost is
that Boost Build is being dropped.
I would like to point out that Boost Build has advanced facilities which
CMake does not presently have and that these facilities form some part
of how some libraries get used ( built, tested, documented ). Unless
CMake can be made to duplicate some of this functionality Boost will be
offering end-users less functionality than they presently have. I think
the goal is always to offer equal or better functionality. I do
understand that C++ developers find it easier to understand and use
CMake than Boost Build so I think that any proposed move to CMake as the
required build environment must take these things into account, and
equivalent CMake functionality should be developed to ease the
transition. That is why it is important to me that Boost Build be
offered as an immediate alternative in Boost's future plans.
> View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/CMake-Announcement-from-Boost-Steering-Committee-tp4696934p4696962.html
> Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk