|
Boost Users : |
From: pbristow_at_[hidden]
Date: 2019-10-11 16:49:43
That's good, but not what the OP (or Original Complainant ð ) had in mind?
Paul
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB UK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost-users <boost-users-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Simon
> Michalke via Boost-users
> Sent: 11 October 2019 10:24
> To: boost-users_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Simon Michalke <simon.michalke_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Building with CMake?
>
> 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,
> >
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net