Subject: Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-21 21:52:47
On 07/21/17 23:35, Florent Castelli via Boost wrote:
> On 21/07/2017 22:15, Andrey Semashev via Boost wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it is realistic to convert the whole Boost in a single
>> release time frame, unless you want to put the transition as a release
>> criteria (which would be a bad idea). It would make sense to either
>> release half-baked support for CMake for a few Boost releases or to
>> follow the switch-the-whole-Boost approach: work on libraries in the
>> background and then merge it to develop/master for all libraries. In
>> the former case there's that potentially endless period of having two
>> build systems.
>
> You could possibly ask developers from other major project who
> transitioned to CMake what was their experience. LLVM moved exclusively
> to CMake not too long ago and it would certainly be interesting for
> people doubting it is possible to talk to their build engineers and
> developers.
> Note that some people (certainly not everyone) are quite happy with the
> transition, I saw again some message the other day from people loving
> the new changes in the latest CMake and it made LLVM compile much faster.
I don't follow LLVM development and not familiar with their specifics,
but I suspect their organization is different from Boost. Do they have
100+ more or less independent libraries, each having its maintainers and
preferences, with no central government?