Re: Building with CMake?

From: pbristow_at_[hidden]
Date: 2019-10-10 14:03:55

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users <boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of David
> Demelier via Boost-users
> Sent: 10 October 2019 13:46
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Cc: David Demelier <markand_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Building with CMake?
> 
> Le 08/10/2019 à 18:52, Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users a écrit :
> >> 1. This essentially means library maintainers are choosing to
> >> maintain at least 2 build systems (bjam for overall boost build, +
> >> whatever preferential build system they use for the library itself).
> >
> > It is not as difficult or time consuming as one may think.
> 
> No offense but who on earth except Boost really use bjam by choice?
> 
> I also second the idea of having a unique top level CMake (plus individual CMake
> for each library) build system to build all libraries.
> Especially since CMake is much superior to bjam regarding portability and options.
> For now each time I need to configure Boost for a custom build I need to spend a
> lot of time in the Boost Build documentation which isn't easy IMHO.

You are right - bjam remains very difficult (but many users believe that it is also more powerful than CMake).

But it is also not easy as you suggest to replicate the bjam settings using CMake -an expert has been working on Boost.Multiprecision for some months now, and that is much easier than Boost.Math for example.

When all the individual libraries have their CMake working, then it is perhaps the time to tackle the top-level?

If you want to get Boost entirely CMake, you need to 'put your money where your mouth is', and contribute.

Paul

Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria 
LA8 8AB           UK