On 5/17/16 4:30 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
AMDG
My personal opinion on the subject is that CMake is not supported by Boost in any way, and any support for it is strictly at the discretion of individual library authors.
Correct. But it's not an opinion. Fact is that no one has been assigned and no one has accepted any obligation to support CMake in Boost.
Corollary 1: There is absolutely no guarantee of consistency across libraries and authors might put CMakeLists.txt in other places besides the root.
Correct - there is no one who could/would make such a guarentee
Corollary 2: I am entirely within my rights in refusing to support CMake at all (even if patches are provided by someone else).
I'm assuming you're speaking as a library author. This is also a fact since no such obligation has been stated or accepted. I would add that as far as I know, Boost only requires the support of boost build. It "does not prohibit any author from supporting any other build system if he wants to take on the task". Personally I've had a CMakeLists.txt file in the distribution for several years. No one has ever complained nor used it either for all I know. For me this has been sufficient but if someone wants more we can add take the quoted text above and add it somewhere. It won't change a a thing anyway. Now there is the entirely separate question of how the CMake system should be used for any given library. CMake permits a lot - some say too much flexibility in this area to expect that the usages are going to be in sync. If the advocates of CMake want to provide a page - "Guide for Boost Authors who want to support CMake" I think it would increase the likelyhood that there would be wider CMake support. Honestly I don't think there's a lot to dispute here. Robert Ramey