Subject: Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-21 16:16:26
On 07/21/17 18:57, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> Here is (once again) how I would approach this instead:
> * Improve the existing Boost.Build infrastructure to allow libraries to
> be built stand-alone. (I remember from discussing with Rene a year ago
> that he had some work in progress to achieve this, so I don't think this
> is particularly hard, at least not for someone understanding Boost.Build
> * Replace the top-level build logic to simply iterate over all
> libraries, invoking this stand-alone build logic.
> * With the above in place, it becomes possible to switch from
> Boost.Build to CMake one library at a time, so the original question can
> be reframed as "which library wants to switch from Boost.Build to
> CMake", which, I'm sure, will be much less disruptive (if at all) and
> non-controversial, as the people to decide will be project maintainers
> and communities.
> Does this process appeal to anyone ?
I'm sure it's been mentioned before by someone, but as a Boost user and
packager (for my work projects) I don't want to deal with a dozen of
build systems (worse yet - multiple versions of the same build system)
to be able to build Boost. Having a single build system, a single
interface and customization point is an important advantage regardless
of what the actual build system is used.
Besides, I have my doubts regarding the technical feasibility of this
heterogenous infrastructure as well. I'm sure there will be quirks and
points of incompatibiliy between the different build systems or some
seemingly unreasonable limitations that follow from this integration
that will leave someone, possibly users, unhappy.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk