This sounds similar if not identical to the advice I give in the Boost Library Incubator. I came to that advice after spending a lot of time investigating and experimenting with all the build tool options. I found them all too complex, too fragile, and not well documentated. Of course I trolled the net looking for information and advice as well. I came to my advice as the most expedient, simplest way to help other users test your library with the minimum of fuss for all involved. That was my goal and I think I achieved it. I try to follow everything on the boost incubator website, that's
Note that I didn't try to solve the "problem" of finding a replacement for boost build.
Having said this and participated in this discussion, I'm now inclined to update my advice on this topic so that the method I propose will be closer to the more common way of using CMake. I think I can do this now while still avoiding decent into CMake arcana. Of course it still won't meet the standards of CMake gurus, but they're not addressing my problem. I hope this is not a misunderstanding. I wrote my first message to agree with you that it is not weird or very awkward to have just one CMakeLists.txt in the build directory, even if it is a bit non-standard. I can't say much about the more complex arguments brought forward in
probably why you find your advice reflected in what I am doing. :) The reviewer's time is a sparse resource, so it makes sense to bring new people up to speed with the Boost Incubator and the guidelines published on that site. I find that quite useful. this thread.
Good luck with your submission. Thank you. :) I am still writing documentation, but I expect to finish soon.
Hans Dembinski