On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:27:33 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
Le 20/05/16 à 00:46, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:21:21 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
Le 20/05/16 à 00:01, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 3:43:01 PM UTC-5, Raffi Enficiaud wrote:
Le 19/05/16 à 19:57, Paul Fultz II a écrit :
[snip]
We are saying its inconvenient and we want it changed.
But... are you asking for a change, or are you trying to enforcing it?
We are asking for a change to allow CMakeLists.txt at the top-level directory of the individual library repo at the library author's discretion. We
are
not trying to force library authors to put a cmake there, that is up to the library author.
Let me rephrase: are you trying to enforce the possibility for having the CMakeLists.txt at the top-level directory of individual libraries?
I don't quite understand what you are asking. How do we enforce a possibility?
The "possibility" in mention here is the change you are asking in the policies (possibility of having the library top-level CMakeLists.txt). "enforce the possibility for having the CMakeLists.txt at the top-level directory of individual libraries" means enforcing the change in the policies.
People have expressed their preferences that are or are not in contraction with your proposal. It is hence questionable that those change would happen in the policy, so I am asking if you consider not having those change is an option you have considered so far.
Well if boost cannot even make this small change towards improving support for cmake, then it obviously would be best to fork boost. However, a final decision hasn't been made on the matter yet, so lets not get carried away.
Or are you asking if it would be possible, and accept any other conclusion than the one you want?
I think not being able to have a cmake at the top-level is unacceptable.
This last sentence is part of what I consider enforcing (pushy).
enforcing != pushy