David Sankel wrote:
I've done a proof of concept for (2), which can be seen here:
Thanks for contributing this Peter. Could you summarize the differences between your proof of concept and Niall's? I think one point of difference is the support for a CMake-based installation of libraries. Is there anything else?
Mine is more or less vanilla CMake, without separate targets for static/shared, and with installation support. I also don't list the header files, just the sources. It's more like Paul's https://github.com/pfultz2/boost-cmake-demo/ and Stephen Kelly and Daniel Pfeiffer's https://github.com/boost-cmake/boost-cmake All that is however about the (effective) content of CMakeLists.txt, and this is not the main, or at least not the only, focus of the demo. It also shows how I think things could be organized so that library authors do not need to maintain the cmake infrastructure (short of adding or removing a source file from the list of sources - something that can also be automated, although I don't see it as that high a burden, as it requires no cmake-specific knowledge.) Unless, of course, the author does want to maintain the cmake infrastructure himself, in which case he'll simply not use default.cmake, but write his own.