Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement
From: Roger Leigh (rleigh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-14 15:40:20

On 14/09/18 15:05, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
> The major problem I see are the variants.
> - b2 can build multiple variants in one go (static, dynamic, runtimes...)
> - Encoding these variants has to be reflected in the target names/aliases

CMake fundamentally doesn't work this way. Nor do any other build
systems I'm aware of. It's unique to b2. I do not think it useful to
require this of any replacement build system in consequence. Especially
when it's an initial minimalistic support as proposed here.

The variant naming strategy brings a lot of pain and it's something I
personally always turn off when I can, because all those name variants
result in having to hardcode b2-specific mappings for all the
combinations in every build system other than b2, **because only b2
defines the names this way**. It's truly horrible, and I don't know why
it's liked so much within the boost community. Am I the only one who
suffers so much from it having to integrate it with other systems on
multiple platforms?


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