Troy, I would actually vote for something like "BOOST_CMAKE_2_6_COMPATIBLE" which makes it very clear what is going to happen. I would also argue that until CMake has an Official release which properly finds Boost/CMake WITHOUT that flag set then that flag is the Default.
There is a certain amount of chicken-and-egg going on here. My argument for having default CMake 2.6 compatibility is that CMake 2.6 probably has the largest share of the CMake market because it has been around longer then CMake 2.8, and even with CMake 2.8, FindBoost.cmake still is NOT updated correctly to find the new Boost/CMake installation layout. I am sure that the CMake devs will take a patch to update FindBoost.cmake in order to be able to find the latest Boost-CMake layout. If I have time I might be able to create a patch for that. In the mean time, for those that DO want to use the whole imported targets and all that, I would agree with the suggestion to distribute a newer FindBoost.cmake that can be dropped into a project with some short instructions on its use. which is mainly set the CMAKE_MODULE_PATH to a folder that has the newer FindBoost.cmake file located inside the users project. That should cover the bases. Thank you for your consideration. _________________________________________________________ Mike Jackson mike.jack...@bluequartz.net On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, troy d. straszheim <t...@resophonic.com> wrote: > Philip Lowman wrote: >>> >>> Try these docs: >>> >>> >>> http://sodium.resophonic.com/boost-cmake/1.41.0.cmake0/doc/exported_targets.html >>> >>> YMMV. The underscores were something that bjam did. I'd really like to >>> make a clean break with the past, I have ideas but nothing too firm yet. >> >> Not that I don't appreciate all of the hard work being done getting >> Boost to build with CMake, but is making a "clean break with the past" >> really a good idea here? That is to say, wouldn't it be easier on >> everyone if the CMake build of Boost matched the bjam defaults >> (especially when it comes to filename/path issues)? >> > > I don't know offhand. Are you going to say what they are and argue that > position? > > Michael just demonstrated how to get the installation to play nice with the > abomination that is FindBoost.cmake. This is now documented. You could add > a flag INSTALL_WITH_FINDBOOST_BACKWARDS_COMPAT that would do those things, > that'd be fine. > > Another possiblity is to distribute a script, say, FindBoost2.cmake that > people could put into their projects that would first look for > cmake-installed boosts and then fall back to FindBoost.cmake practice if > they're not available. > > Anyhow, when I said "clean break with the past", I wasn't talking about > changing some underscores to dots just to be different. > > -t > > > _______________________________________________ > Boost-cmake mailing list > Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake > _______________________________________________ Boost-cmake mailing list Boost-cmake@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-cmake
