Re: [Boost-cmake] Analysis of the current CMake system

Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] Analysis of the current CMake system
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-15 09:56:34

David Abrahams wrote:
> on Wed Jan 14 2009, "troy d. straszheim" <troy-AT-resophonic.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Brad,
>>
>> There is a lot to discuss here.  I'll go back later and make specific comments. It'd
>> be great to talk in person at boostcon, (boostcon rocks, by the way.)
>>
>> I understand/agree with a lot of your points (especially bulkiness, and the need to
>> reduce the number of toplevel targets), in most cases because I've learned more about
>> cmake since I implemented what is currently on the boost trunk.
>>
>> Brad King wrote:
>>> [snip] 
>>>
>>> In summary, I'd like to help you folks address these issues.  Some of
>>> the work will be in Boost's CMake code and some in CMake itself.  The
>>> work will benefit both projects.  We can arrange to meet at BoostCon,
>>> but we can probably get alot of discussion done on this list before
>>> then.  BTW, can anyone suggest a preferred format for a BoostCon
>>> session from the boost-cmake-devs' point of view?
>> I don't personally see a formal presentation to boost-cmake devs as being useful,
>> there just aren't enough of us (last I checked there were three).
> 
> Who are you counting?  

I was counting Doug, Michael and myself

> I don't think I've done anything substantial with
> Boost-CMake but would still be *very* interested in such a talk.

That's good news...  I stand corrected.  What to you say to the original 
question about the preferred format?

-t