Subject: [boost] [SPAM] Re: Informal CMake meeting at CPPCon
From: Louis Dionne (ldionne.2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-03 15:16:26
Boost - Dev mailing list wrote
> My motivation for posting this is to keep the boost community up to date
> on what's happening so that no one gets overly surprised when things
> start to happen. I'm not really soliciting feedback - though it
> wouldn't surprise me if I get some.
> Robert Ramey
Thank you Robert for the update to the mailing list!
I think this makes perfect sense and I support what you've outlined. More
specifically, here's how I see things: BCM (and any other competing
proposal) should go through a formal review. If we agree that BCM is the
right way to support CMake in Boost, it can be accepted as a "library"
(although a CMake library) as a result of the formal review process.
It will then be up to the community to start writing their CMakeLists.txt
files, using BCM for convenience and to enforce coherency amongst the Boost
libraries. That being said, my understanding is that Paul has already done a
lot of work in that direction, and it would be wise to reuse it. I do think,
however, that the actual CMakeLists.txt in each Boost library is a
completely different matter than BCM, which is the library that will be put
up for review.
-- Sent from: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Boost-Dev-f2600599.html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk