<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Luigi Calori <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:l.calori@cineca.it">l.calori@cineca.it</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+1 for FindBoost support to "CMakeified" version of Boost at "<a href="http://gitorious.org/~denisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake/commits/1.44.0-denis" target="_blank">http://gitorious.org/~denisarnaud/boost/denisarnauds-zeuners-boost-cmake/commits/1.44.0-denis</a>":</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Luigi,</div><div><br></div><div>Does the "CMakeified" version of Boost still not produce build outputs that match bjam by default? I remember when I looked at it a year or two ago there appeared to be only minor issues with the library names. I would have hoped that these issues would have been resolved by now.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Could you elaborate in a bug report what does and doesn't work between FindBoost.cmake and the branch of Boost that you're referring to and I would be more than happy to look into the issue. I've heard reports of people getting FindBoost and CMakeified boost to play nice together but it involved changing build settings in CMakeified Boost (not quite ideal).</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Philip Lowman<br>