Re: Building with CMake?

From: Simon Michalke (simon.michalke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-10-11 09:23:38

Hello to all,

as someone who implemented boost as a dependency into a CMake Project I
would suggest a simple solution based on this. Just one CMake File that
builds with bjam as a subproject and manages to redirect all compiler
related settings. I can provide my sample implementation if there is
interest in it.

Regards,
Simon

Am 10.10.19 um 16:32 schrieb Mateusz Loskot via Boost-users:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 14:46, David Demelier via Boost-users
> <boost-users_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> None taken.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> We all have right to our own opinions.
> 
> I just addressed some very concrete questions related to existence of
> CMakeLists.txt files for some of Boost libraries.
> 
> Please, excuse me the lack of answers to your questions, but I am not
> going to allow myself to get dragged into yet another never-ending
> nowhere-leading inconclusive thread of Boost.Build vs CMake wrestling .
> There have been many, for some too many, of those over the last few years.
> 
> Still nobody has come up with a solid working solution acceptable by all
> parties involved in using and developing Boost. Indicative, isn't it (rhetoric).
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm a CMake daily user and sporadic contributor to CMake myself,
> with a decade long experience configuring numerous non-trivial open source
> projects for CMake 2.8, then modernizing to CMake 3, 3.5 and later,
> who have learned that "CMake is much superior to Boost.Build"
> generalizations deserve to be flushed with power of toilet water.
> 
> Best regards,
>