On 5/16/16 09:47, Mikhail Strelnikov wrote:
* Several companies have revealed that they are building Boost with
their own custom CMake scripts. The suggested policy change would enable authors to relieve the infrastructure cost of their CMake users and unify how their library is built.
I have opposite experience by replacing dozens of CMake scripts with one tiny Jamfile.
* CMake is, by far, the most popular build system for C++. Allowing authors to support CMake users in addition to BJam will help the Boost ecosystem to grow and thrive by lowering the barriers to access.
IMHO, CMakeLists.txt looks ugly as everything in camel starting with C. There are lots of Boost libraries having only "index.html" in their top-level directory, look, there is a pattern here and I'm not sure this should be uglified.
I don't care too much about popularity, but Bjam/BB does support C++ much better than CMake. It has, for example, "usage-requirements".
Hi Mikhail (and others who might reply to this thread) - This isn't a beauty pageant nor is it a popularity contest. David is simply asking for community input concerning a change to the Boost Guidelines. Despite beliefs on the technical merit of CMake versus Boost.Build, CMake has been a leader in the open source community and within many companies for a number of years. CMake now has a variety of features, including 'usage-requirements', that were inspired by Boost.Build and the work that the Boost community has done with Kitware. Lets try and keep this thread on topic. Thanks! michael -- Michael Caisse Ciere Consulting ciere.com