|
|
Boost Interest : |
Subject: Re: [Boost-cmake] boost 1.41.0-cmake0 and CMake 2.6.4 - The usual, CMake can not find boost.
From: Mike Jackson (mike.jackson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-05 09:09:28
Troy,
I would actually vote for something like
"BOOST_CMAKE_2_6_COMPATIBLE" which makes it very clear what is going
to happen. I would also argue that until CMake has an Official release
which properly finds Boost/CMake WITHOUT that flag set then that flag
is the Default.
There is a certain amount of chicken-and-egg going on here. My
argument for having default CMake 2.6 compatibility is that CMake 2.6
probably has the largest share of the CMake market because it has been
around longer then CMake 2.8, and even with CMake 2.8, FindBoost.cmake
still is NOT updated correctly to find the new Boost/CMake
installation layout. I am sure that the CMake devs will take a patch
to update FindBoost.cmake in order to be able to find the latest
Boost-CMake layout. If I have time I might be able to create a patch
for that.
In the mean time, for those that DO want to use the whole imported
targets and all that, I would agree with the suggestion to distribute
a newer FindBoost.cmake that can be dropped into a project with some
short instructions on its use. which is mainly set the
CMAKE_MODULE_PATH to a folder that has the newer FindBoost.cmake file
located inside the users project. That should cover the bases.
Thank you for your consideration.
_________________________________________________________
Mike Jackson mike.jackson_at_[hidden]
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, troy d. straszheim <troy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Philip Lowman wrote:
>>>
>>> Try these docs:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://sodium.resophonic.com/boost-cmake/1.41.0.cmake0/doc/exported_targets.html
>>>
>>> YMMV. The underscores were something that bjam did. I'd really like to
>>> make a clean break with the past, I have ideas but nothing too firm yet.
>>
>> Not that I don't appreciate all of the hard work being done getting
>> Boost to build with CMake, but is making a "clean break with the past"
>> really a good idea here? That is to say, wouldn't it be easier on
>> everyone if the CMake build of Boost matched the bjam defaults
>> (especially when it comes to filename/path issues)?
>>
>
> I don't know offhand. Are you going to say what they are and argue that
> position?
>
> Michael just demonstrated how to get the installation to play nice with the
> abomination that is FindBoost.cmake. This is now documented. You could add
> a flag INSTALL_WITH_FINDBOOST_BACKWARDS_COMPAT that would do those things,
> that'd be fine.
>
> Another possiblity is to distribute a script, say, FindBoost2.cmake that
> people could put into their projects that would first look for
> cmake-installed boosts and then fall back to FindBoost.cmake practice if
> they're not available.
>
> Anyhow, when I said "clean break with the past", I wasn't talking about
> changing some underscores to dots just to be different.
>
> -t
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-cmake mailing list
> Boost-cmake_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
>