Boost logo

Boost :

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:
>>     I don't believe in conspiracies.
>>     But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on
>> the ml
>>     after the steering committee made their announcement that I
>> wouldn't be
>>     surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences
>>     compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the
>> library
>>     itself.
> and your suggestion is ... ?
> The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing
> happened.  This is something.

I suggest you read chapter 10 of "the little prince" (by Antoine de
Saint-Exupéry, for example here: 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at