Boost logo

Boost :

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.  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.

It is indeed. Thanks to you all to try to resolve this problem.


      ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at