Re: [boost] [CMake] Status of cmake support.

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
>> library
>> 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-Exupéry, 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.

Stefan

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