Subject: Re: [boost] Informal CMake meeting at CPPCon
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-02 17:06:56
On 10/2/17 9:16 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> Have you discussed the possibility for the two (Boost.Build and CMake)
> to coexist, by modularizing the build infrastructure such that some
> libraries might switch to CMake while others might continue using
> Boost.Build ? I continue to believe that there is no real alternative to
> such an approach, as you can't coerce anyone into migrating to a new
> tool, you can only offer a new tool and hope that people will
> (eventually) migrate.
That happens to be my position as well - see my presentation boost 2.0
from a couple of years ago. But it's pretty clear that that's a
minority opinion. It's also clear that there is no point in doing much
of anything until we have clear idea how CMake is to be used in the
context of boost.
I'm looking for something that we can agree on so some progress can be
made. I'm please that reached a concensus that proposed tools should go
through a review process similar to that of libraries. I think this
will be a positive step in helping boost move forward.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk