Re: [boost] Switch to CMake -- Analysis

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 17:39 +0200, Thomas Heller via Boost wrote:

Am 21.07.2017 5:18 nachm. schrieb "Andrey Semashev via Boost" < boost@lists.boost.org>:

On 07/21/17 18:00, Thomas Heller via Boost wrote:

...

Am 21.07.2017 4:55 nachm. schrieb "paul" :

On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 16:21 +0200, Thomas Heller via Boost wrote:

...

All in all, I am pretty confident that a disruptive switch will hurt Boost more than it brings benefit. This already happened. To come to an end and summarize: Provide proper CMake integration, such that Boost is consumable by those (while you are at it, don't forget meson, bazel and pkg-config).

pkg-config is build-indenpendent so can be consumed by meson and bazel.

It's also consumable by cmake. Doesn't propagate build properties though. Only plain and simple strings on how to invoke the compiler/linker. Anything else is not the default behavior.

It does, at least with regard to macros to define, include/library directories to add and libraries to link with. Or do you have different properties in mind?

Well, recently, cmake got support for c++ feature properties for example. The big advantage is that the flags carry on semantics and the build system is able to determine conflicts etc.

Well I think you can encode those using pkg-config files. You can use the `replaces` and `conflicts` fields to help pkg-config resolve the flag. The C++ features properties still lack maturity with cmake.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman /listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boo st