use boost-cmake again

[ClausKlein]

• the clone of the git repo takes to long time!
• and the boost CMake files are not really designed as modern CMake project!
• there is no central include directory!
• the boost CMake system is designed for boost developers to test there submodule
• every module lib that include an header of on other module lib depends on this lib, too if it may used as header-only lib!

bash-3.2$ find . -type d -name include | wc -
    163     163    4103 -
bash-3.2$ grep submodule .gitmodules  | wc -l
160
bash-3.2$ 

[TheLartians]

Hey, thanks for the PR, and sorry for the delay. I wasn't aware that boost still isn't properly CMake compatible. Could you also update the example in the Readme to reflect the change?

[TheLartians]

Thanks for the changes! I just noticed that you linked to your local fork instead of the "original" Orphis/boost-cmake package. I assume this is to support more recent releases for boost project, as @Orphis version doesn't have releases after 1.67.0. Two things worry me however.

• In case this becomes commonly used, are you completely sure you want to continue maintaining the project in the future? You could also end up breaking many peoples projects if you move the project or delete your GitHub account.
• I also wonder if it is a good idea in general to add very new projects or forks to prominent positions in the readme and examples, as it can create an impression that these are commonly used and long-term maintained packages.

In any case, I've seen that you've made a pull request to the original project, which I would prefer to use. Perhaps for now we can fallback to the last supported version here and upgrade again after your PR is merged?

[ClausKlein]

In any case, I've seen that you've made a pull request to the original project, which I would prefer to use. Perhaps for now we can fallback to the last supported version here and upgrade again after your PR is merged?

Yes, this is my intention.

If my pull request is ignored, we may transfer this repo to cpm-cmake or perhaps better to cmake.org?

[TheLartians]

If my pull request is ignored, we may transfer this repo to cpm-cmake or perhaps better to cmake.org?

I find moving it to the cpm-cmake namespace a bit problematic as it would imply that we are interested in actively maintaining this fork, which I am not. However, if we make it very clear that the fork's only purpose is to allow more frequent contributions from the community I think could be ok with it. However I'd much prefer somebody more involved with the library to take ownership if the original author isn't interested in maintaining the project anymore (afaict the last updates were made over a year and the last release over 4 years ago).

@iboB any thoughts?

[iboB]

I am toying with the idea of proposing the addition CPM-ified and CPM-friendly packages to cpm-cmake. Though I don't yet have a robust enough concrete proposal. So for now I would vote against it.

Note that people have started creating orgs for this on their own. For example this one

@ClausKlein, perhaps @CraigHutchinson would agree to add the boost-cmake repo there?

[CraigHutchinson]

Note that people have started creating orgs for this on their own. For example this one

@ClausKlein, perhaps @CraigHutchinson would agree to add the boost-cmake repo there?

💯 this is why CMakePackageRepository exists to contain this sort of repository. The repo provides pure CMake project wrappers for things 'I've' needed recently but I hope it can build some momentum.

Would be good to promote this somehow... I was pleasantly surprised it has been noticed already by osmosis!

@ClausKlein Need to document the repo-request workflow but just message me and I can give you admin on boost-cmake if you so desire it :)

[ClausKlein]

@ClausKlein Need to document the repo-request workflow but just message me and I can give you admin on boost-cmake if you so desire it :)

@CraigHutchinson Do you something like this? https://github.com/ClausKlein/boost-cmake#readme

[TheLartians]

@ClausKlein any thoughts / progress on moving your fork to the CMakePackageRegistry org?

[ClausKlein]

@ClausKlein any thoughts / progress on moving your fork to the CMakePackageRegistry org?

No, at the moment I am working on boost v1.81.0 ...
ClausKlein/boost-cmake#6

[CraigHutchinson]

I've sent invites. I haven't used boost for a while but hear since 1.78 it includes CMake as a build options? I also hear its support is somewhat limited.

[ClausKlein]

Please note Why you should NOT use Boost git repo with CPM.cmake
and this notes about building-boost-with-cmake

[CraigHutchinson]

Please note Why you should NOT use Boost git repo with CPM.cmake and this notes about building-boost-with-cmake

thanks, pretty clear, certainly backs up what I heard!

[CraigHutchinson]

Okay, I realised that I can fork to the cmakepackageregistry. You are admin to the project so can sync as/when and keep the personal copy for dev 🚀
This does mean this PR can use a non-user account name... And starts the registry becoming something more with any hope. I am actually considering using this boost cmake as realise my new company is using some hackery your project may help wi

[ClausKlein]

I give it up