Subject: Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis
From: Joseph Van Riper (fleeb.fantastique_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-21 18:47:33
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:24 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> Actually, as a user I do care and not in favor of CMake because there is
> always a possibility that Boost requires a newer CMake version that is
> not available on my platform.
This, too, concerns me.
b2 builds on everything, and is included in every boost distribution. It
is apparently built with such consideration that I can use it on
ridiculously old versions of gcc without breaking a sweat.
In cyber security, when training individuals, you find yourself using
ridiculously old machines. We need, therefore, to be able to build
software on these old machines.
Watching this decision play out, I have concerns that I won't be able to do
things like build boost on a 10-year-old distribution of debian using
static libraries (so they work on all distributions based on this debian
release), while also building boost for Windows XP on VC++ 2013 in a way
that allows certain projects with fiddly settings compiler properly, yet
still build for other version of Windows on the more recent compilers with
more sane settings.
I fully expect turbulence in the coming conversion to CMake for my
admittedly non-standard setup.
My hope is that this happens in at a measured pace allowing for edge cases
line mine to weigh in without stopping newer fixes and contributions from
entering the distribution.
If there's some way I can set up a series of automated tests, I'd like to
(Yes, observant folks might notice that I've mentioned this before, and
appeared not to follow up... I did actually try to set up automated
testing, but ran into problems, then failed to follow up with anyone about
those problems because I got distracted by my job... but if this is moving
to CMake, I expect I need to help).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk