Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Pull request announcement
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-14 15:59:41

> unless I'm encountering an overwhelming resistance to this idea
> here on the ml, I intend to create a batch of PRs that introduce
> minimal cmake support to a large subset of boost libraries
> (maybe even all).

I would oppose this PR for the following reasons:

1. A lot of work has been invested by many people in the Boost cmake
implementation, which is ready for peer review. It would do its authors
a great disservice to push through some stop gap.

Instead, the OP should consider review managing the Boost cmake
implementation if he is so keen on this. That's the blocker - lack of
review manager. Not that the work hasn't been done.

2. cmake is a big move for Boost. Submitting a stopgap without proper
community review is not in keeping with Boost's established precedent
and norms.

3. It is the wrong stopgap solution at a technical level. The correct
stopgap solution is an imported targets cmake file which refers to the
build outputs generated by Boost.Build. Possibly, Boost.Build should
generate it, but I can see worth in a Python script which can take a
release distro and generate from that an imported targets cmake. Even
better if said Python script can be run as part of release management,
and the imported targets cmake file gets shipped with the release distro.

I applaud the OP's eagerness. But he's proposing the wrong solution, and
for the wrong reasons.


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