Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] Status of cmake support.
From: Stefan Seefeld (stefan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-24 23:01:05
On 24.02.2018 17:32, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
> On 2/24/18 2:17 PM, Mike via Boost wrote:
>> Â Â Â I don't believe in conspiracies.
>> Â Â Â But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on
>> the ml
>> Â Â Â after the steering committee made their announcement that I
>> wouldn't be
>> Â Â Â surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences
>> Â Â Â compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the
>> Â Â Â itself.
> and your suggestion is ... ?
> The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing
> happened. Â This is something.
I suggest you read chapter 10 of "the little prince" (by Antoine de
Saint-ExupÃ©ry, for example here:
http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/chapter10.html). Perhaps that
helps to illustrate what's going on. It seems quite clear from my POV. :-)
As I said in another reply: it's important to be clear about what the
review should be about, and it would be very wrong to interpret the
review as an endorsement to be used *by every boost project*. But the
problem of such an endeavour is not with any particular tool, it's the
task itself that's fundamentally flawed (or even impossible).
What I find stunning isn't that "nothing happened", it's that no-one has
tried to even consider alternative approaches, such as ones that give
more autonomy to individual projects.
-- ...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