Subject: Re: [boost] Boost tests with cmake
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-29 16:13:52
On 7/29/2017 10:50 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> On 7/29/2017 5:02 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> > I've given it some thought and I like the BCM approach; BCM should
>> be a > library in libs/bcm (if we retain the name).
>> Perhaps a tool in tools/bcm ?
> One could argue for that, if we go by principle alone.
> Pragmatically speaking, I prefer being able to submodule boostorg/foo
> and boostorg/bcm side by side and then have `include(../bcm/bcm_deploy)`
> in foo/CMakeLists.txt, instead of having to submodule foo as libs/foo
> and bcm as tools/bcm and then have `include(../../tools/bcm/bcm_deploy)`
> in foo/CMakeLists.txt.
Understood, but bcm is really a tool to work with Boost libraries rather
than what is ordinarily thought off as a Boost library itself. What will
end-users think if we mix tools and libs in the same hierarchy <g> ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk