Re: [boost] [Boost][CMake] Status of cmake support.
I don't believe in conspiracies. But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on the ml after the steering committee made their announcement that I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the library itself.
On 2/24/18 2:17 PM, Mike via Boost wrote:
I don't believe in conspiracies. But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on the ml after the steering committee made their announcement that I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the library itself.
and your suggestion is ... ? The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing happened. This is something. If you're really interested in see some progress on this I would suggest that you: a) review the proposed submission on your own b) practice with it. c) make your own "pre-review" d) submit it to the author so that he can address any issues you found that he might not be aware of. e) if you like excitement, you could also submit it to this list. Robert Ramey
On 24.02.2018 17:32, Robert Ramey via Boost wrote:
On 2/24/18 2:17 PM, Mike via Boost wrote:
I don't believe in conspiracies. But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on the ml after the steering committee made their announcement that I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the library itself.
and your suggestion is ... ?
The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing happened. This is something.
I suggest you read chapter 10 of "the little prince" (by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, for example here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/chapter10.html). Perhaps that helps to illustrate what's going on. It seems quite clear from my POV. :-) As I said in another reply: it's important to be clear about what the review should be about, and it would be very wrong to interpret the review as an endorsement to be used *by every boost project*. But the problem of such an endeavour is not with any particular tool, it's the task itself that's fundamentally flawed (or even impossible). What I find stunning isn't that "nothing happened", it's that no-one has tried to even consider alternative approaches, such as ones that give more autonomy to individual projects. Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing happened. This is something.
I suggest you read chapter 10 of "the little prince" (by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, for example here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/chapter10.html). Perhaps that helps to illustrate what's going on. It seems quite clear from my POV. :-)
[OT] Surprised to see this text on the internet (ignoring piracy and al...), I checked its copyrights, and interestingly, [OT] it's apparently public domain everywhere since 2015 *except* in France, the author's country. [OT] French article explaining why below. For short, war-time extension (+8 years), died in the line [OT] of duty (+30 years), and finally UE directive not applying retroactively. So not until 2032 for France... --DD http://next.liberation.fr/culture/2015/06/03/pourquoi-saint-exupery-est-il-t...
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 10:42 +0100, Dominique Devienne via Boost wrote:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Stefan Seefeld via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
The steering committee made their announcement and ... nothing happened. This is something.
I suggest you read chapter 10 of "the little prince" (by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, for example here: http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/chapter10.html). Perhaps that helps to illustrate what's going on. It seems quite clear from my POV. :-)
A little off topic... It's also a great book for learning a foreign language. It very much helped me to learn Catalan and Spanish a few years ago. On topic: I've been using CMake in a production env for the past 4+ years. I'm very much a fan - not because of the abominable syntax and documentation, or the fact that there are things you "just have to know" (e.g. how and when to construct and use a toolchain file), but because it's the best available build system for cross-platform development in c++ (which I think in itself is a damning indictment of the state of the c++ build and packaging tools landscape in general). While I am mindful that much of the boost community is committed to b2/bjam (or whatever they're calling it now), I'd like to see an up-to- date, well-written cmake script published with the boost libs as it would ease my life considerably. Happy to help the effort if someone would like to direct me to a repo and bug tracker. R
[OT] Surprised to see this text on the internet (ignoring piracy and al...), I checked its copyrights, and interestingly, [OT] it's apparently public domain everywhere since 2015 *except* in France, the author's country. [OT] French article explaining why below. For short, war-time extension (+8 years), died in the line [OT] of duty (+30 years), and finally UE directive not applying retroactively. So not until 2032 for France... --DD
http://next.liberation.fr/culture/2015/06/03/pourquoi-saint-exupery-e st-il-tombe-dans-le-domaine-public-partout-sauf-en-france_1322085
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo. cgi/boost
Mike wrote:
But I've seen enough resistance (me st of it well reasoned) on the ml after the steering committee made their announcement that I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of reviews focus on deficiencies / differences compared to boost build that are inherent to cmake and not the library itself.
Not good form to foreshadow the reviews in such a manner. You're poisoning everyone's mind so that every reviewer will be judged, if subconsciously, against the idea that negative reviews imply bad faith. We don't do that here.
participants (6)
-
Dominique Devienne -
Mike -
Peter Dimov -
Richard Hodges -
Robert Ramey -
Stefan Seefeld