On 6/17/2017 12:04 AM, David Sankel via Boost wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Edward Diener via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
As has been pointed out by many people Boost Build does a number of things for building, testing, and creating documentation for a library which CMake does not do, whereas I have never seen any evidence of a single thing which CMake does which Boost Build cannot do. So in effect you are asking developers to give up a superior build product for one that is vastly more popular.
That is a correct assessment.
I have even asked about a CMake deficiency on the CMake mailing list, only to receive no answer at all. That is why I have the impression that CMake deficiencies are just ignored.
Uhm, this happens with any Open Source project with a big enough user base. Can you link to your post?
I do not want to debate. I am still waiting for anyone to show me CMake
building all Boost libraries, including builds, tests, and documentation, with the same results that Boost Build currently does. Anyone ? Otherwise this endless suggestion of moving to CMake, because it is so popular with the general programming world, seems an absolute dead end to me.
BTW I am no great lover of bjam syntax or the undocumented internal complexities of the Boost Build system. But unless I can be shown a CMake system that can practically do what Boost Build does for maintaining libraries I believe your suggestion is a non-starter.
This sounds a lot like "do the work first and then I'll tell you whether or not your time was wasted". This is a significant time and probably monetary investment, something worthy of discussion *before* the work is done.
You seem to expect Boost to decide to move from Boost Build to CMake without even a proof of concept that shows that CMake can build,test, and/or create docs as Boost Build is currently able to do for all Boost libraries. I would never expect Boost to do that.