But if boost can’t make this trivial change to better support cmake, then it would be hopeless for future changes in boost for better cmake support.
I don't really have a stake in this, but I think this is the reason why this discussion is so awkward. It seems that 'CMakeLists.txt' is seen by both opponents and proponents as a foot in the door for future changes in Boost for better cmake support. I can understand existing library maintainers being worried about having to support cmake in the future (or risk looking arcane). And likewise I can understand new library developers keen on using the widespread cmake (and reaching more users). Sorry for butting in, but it seems you are being foot-fetishists and only indirectly discussing the real issue.