Re: [boost] [release] 1.69.0 deadline for new libraries approaching

Subject: Re: [boost] [release] 1.69.0 deadline for new libraries approaching
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-23 03:02:21

On 10/22/2018 7:55 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> > On 10/22/18 10:19 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
>> > > Marshall Clow wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> * 24-Oct: Boost 1.69.0 closed for new libraries and breaking changes
>> > >
>> > > OK... do we want CMake config files installed by 1.69 or not, then?
>> >
>> > I'd like to know this as well.  If so, I presume that we can 
>> consider > the Boost/CMake issues resolved and we can just move on 
>> from this?
>>
>> I doubt it. The CMake issue is much bigger than this.
> 
> To expand on that:
> 
> The Boost/CMake issues concern four scenarios:
> 
> 1. CMake users who want to use a pre-built Boost from CMake, after 
> installing it either with `b2 install`, as usual, or via some other 
> mechanism;
> 
> 2. CMake users who want to use Boost (or an individual Boost library) 
> from CMake without building it with b2 and installing it, but as a 
> subproject, built by CMake;
> 
> 3. Building and installing Boost with CMake, replacing the current 
> Boost.Build building/installing infrastructure;
> 
> 4. Testing Boost with CMake, replacing the current Boost.Build testing 
> infrastructure.

5. Building a library's documentation with CMake. Quite a number of 
libraries currently use the Quickbook -> Boostbook -> html/pdf cycle 
with built-in support by Boost Build for this with a jamfile.

> 
> Installing CMake config files as part of `b2 install` falls into 
> scenario number 1. Boost is still built with Boost.Build as always, it's 
> just that in addition to libboost_foo.a, the user also gets 
> libboost_foo.cmake, which allows him to do `find_package(boost_foo)` 
> from his CMakeLists.txt file. Nothing more than that. This doesn't 
> affect, doesn't target, and doesn't address, scenarios 2-4 at all.