Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 16:38:27

On 19/07/2017 18:08, Klemens Morgenstern via Boost wrote:
> Fourthly I don't think the comittee does understand how much work this
> will be for the maintainers of certain libraries, such as boost.python.
> For header only libraries with trivial tests, I don't think it'll be
> much work, but I don't see the steering comittee or those crying for
> CMake doing the implementation for the more compilicated libraries. This
> decision will put constraints on many maintainers and some of them will
> see this as an artificial requirement. Now we can handle that if we get
> paid; but for projects we do for free, some of us will consider that too
> frustrating and jump ship. And since the first response was Rene, I
> think this could really hurt boost.

Maybe it's just me, but paying for Boost.Build effort to better document
it, clean it a bit and adding the feature of automatically generate
CMake (and maybe the infrastructure to build system projects) and
packagin utilities for major distros would be relatively cheap and
extremely useful to easy the use of Boost.

Like regressions test infrastructure, it's a basic building block for
Boost so it should get a different treatment from other libraries.


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