Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee

Subject: Re: [boost] CMake Announcement from Boost Steering Committee
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-24 13:27:54

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Roger Leigh via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 22/07/17 11:47, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> This is a case where Boost's policy of appending all of the
> toolset/configuration/threading model etc. to the library name is somewhat
> unique and, and generally incompatible with how the rest of the world works.
> In general, I've found it a hindrance to interoperability, and solving a
> problem which I didn't have in the first place.  No one else does it, and
> there's likely a good reason for that!  At most, I add a 'd' debug postfix
> on Windows, and that's it (this is handled by CMake as a standard
> behaviour).  If I need multiple configurations, I build them separately and
> explicitly; I don't expect it of the build system itself.

What about multiple compiler versions, dynamic vs static library and
dynamic vs static runtime?
Until vcpkg this has been a disaster for me (on Windows). Having to
collect outputs from multiple build trees and then hoping you're
linking to the right one..

-- 
Olaf