Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal for moving Boost to CMake
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-17 18:15:40
On 6/17/17 10:30 AM, Niall Douglas via Boost wrote:
>>> So tl;dr; I strongly recommend placing all cmake complexity into
>>> runnable scripts which generate .cmake files to be include()d to avoid
>>> boilerplate, and keep the CMakeLists.txt etc completely free of any
>>> custom macros or functions.
>>
>> Niall, could you please show how an idiomatic CMakeLists.txt file
>> should, in your opinion, look like, for a run-of-the-mill Boost library?
>> Pick some existing library to illustrate the point, such as for example
>> System, or SmartPtr, or even the simplest one, Assert. Or any other, if
>> you prefer.
>
> Sure, though I'm talking really vanilla cmake here. But I guess it will
> narrow the discussion by demonstrating idiomatic cmake 3. Too much cmake
> 2 still kicks around. I really wish cmake would kill off cmake2-isms, as
> in, refuse to use them.
>
> According to Jens'
> https://meetingcpp.com/tl_files/blog/bda/boostdepbargraph.png, System
> looks the most tractable. I'll see if I can find some hours to do it up,
> I can guarantee it won't be today nor tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow night
> after the kids are asleep.
>
> Niall
>
Hmmm - I would be curious if a CMake enthusiast took a look at the Safe
Numerics repo and commented on the CMake files listed there. I think
its pretty simple and canonical usage of CMake as it relates to a Boost
library. The only think I want to change is the existence of some code
in a CMake directory which I'll soon eliminate - but all in all it's
pretty simple. What would be missing from this for it it to meet
expectations of CMake Promotors?
Robert Ramey
