On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 10:16 -0700, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 10/2/17 9:59 AM, paul via Boost wrote:
On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 08:33 -0700, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 10/2/17 8:27 AM, paul via Boost wrote:
On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 21:33 -0700, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
Thats what is being done.
If that passes and is accepted
b) Apply to all the libraries desired.
No, apply to all libraries period, as authors of upstream libraries shouldn't hold back a library from moving to cmake.
I think it would be unwise to presume that you can enforce this.
I believe that is what the SC decision was about.
Agreed. That's why it's flawed.
One of the important use cases to support cmake in boost, is to move away from problematic find modules for `find_package`.
<snip>
Interesting, I look forward to seeing this topic discussed in the review.
Also, a lot of the libraries are very intertwined, so its not really possible to update to cmake piecewise. For example, to implement the build and tests in cmake for Boost.Config, we need cmake support for tr1, core, type_traits, and detail, which these libraries already depended on Boost.Config as well.
Also very interesting. Doesn't bode well for a successful implementation. But we're anxious to have a look.
This email update was the start of successful implementation, so I disagree..
To me this is the main benefit of having such tooling ideas go through the boost review process.
The system is already defined by cmake, adn BCM doesn't plan to change that.. The modules are just there to improve the cmake's workflow in the context of boost.
Hmmmm - so you're saying what? That there is nothing to be gained by the boost type of review process?
I am not saying there shouldn't be reviewed, because we want to make sure it is sufficient for developers and users.
That it's just a question telling developers to "turn on" CMake. That every aspect of build/test/post results is baked into CMake and there is no ambiguity about how to use it in this context. Having spent significant amount of time with CMake myself, this would be a surprise to me.
There is a effective workflow with cmake that can help cover many different use-cases as outlined by Daniel Pfeifer's Effective CMake talk, and I don't think we should stray from that.
If you really think this, we can drop the whole idea of boost style review and just stay with the current situation. This is that Boost Steering committee makes a pronouncement, and developers ignore it.
I dont think this. .