Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis

Subject: Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-21 15:39:28

Am 21.07.2017 5:18 nachm. schrieb "Andrey Semashev via Boost" <
boost_at_[hidden]>:

On 07/21/17 18:00, Thomas Heller via Boost wrote:

> Am 21.07.2017 4:55 nachm. schrieb "paul" <pfultz2_at_[hidden]>:
>
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:21 +0200, Thomas Heller via Boost wrote:
>
>>
>> All in all, I am pretty confident that a disruptive switch will hurt
>> Boost more than it brings benefit. This already happened. To come to an
>> end and summarize: Provide proper CMake integration, such that Boost is
>> consumable by those (while you are at it, don't forget meson, bazel and
>> pkg-config).
>>
>
> pkg-config is build-indenpendent so can be consumed by meson and bazel.
>
> It's also consumable by cmake. Doesn't propagate build properties though.
> Only plain and simple strings on how to invoke the compiler/linker.
> Anything else is not the default behavior.
>

It does, at least with regard to macros to define, include/library
directories to add and libraries to link with. Or do you have different
properties in mind?

Well, recently, cmake got support for c++ feature properties for example.
The big advantage is that the flags carry on semantics and the build system
is able to determine conflicts etc.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
/listinfo.cgi/boost