Subject: Re: [boost] Informal CMake meeting at CPPCon
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-02 17:22:51
On 02.10.2017 13:06, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> 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.Â But it's pretty clear that that's a
> minority opinion.Â It's also clear that there is no point in doing
> much of anything until we haveÂ 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.Â I'm please that reached a concensus that proposed tools should
> go through a review process similar to that of libraries.Â I think
> this will be a positive step in helping boost move forward.
It is indeed. Thanks to you all to try to resolve this problem.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Stefan
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk