From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-24 12:08:22
On 9/24/20 2:30 PM, Paul A Bristow via Boost wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Alexander Grund via Boost
>> Sent: 24 September 2020 11:59
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Cc: Alexander Grund <alexander.grund_at_[hidden]>
>> Subject: [boost] Configure check guidelines
>>
>>>> On 9/24/20 11:19 AM, Alexander Grund via Boost wrote:
>>>>> Is there some common practice where to put such configure checks
>>>>> that are required to build the library?
>>>> I'm putting configure/build time checks in the config directory at the top level of the library.
>>>> But I don't think there is an official guideline wrt. this.
>>> I think there should be. And not just in JSON metadata. But it is a
>>> big job for some libraries, duplicating what is in jamfiles.
>>
>> Starting a new thread. TLDR: Where should (source)files go that are required during the "configure" step
>> of a regular build?
>>
>> Not sure what is meant by JSON metadata as I don't see how that is related. Can you elaborate?
>
> This was Edward Diener's original suggestion that the Boost metadata currently giving name, author etc could include the C++ standard level applicable.
>
> It is the data for this list https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/
>
> The discussion is here, for the record and new people joining this thread
>
> http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Proposal-for-adding-C-level-to-the-meta-libraries-json-td4713445.html
Configure checks that require source files typically do not check for
C++ version or features. For that there are already pre-defined rules in
Boost.Config.
Configure checks typically test the environment for various features,
such as available APIs, libraries, compiler capabilities, CPU features,
that sort of stuff. I don't see how JSON metadata relates to this.
To me, the existing practice (using config top level directory) seems
fine. We might as well document it.