On 2025-03-01 5:26 a.m., Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote:
> 2025-02-28T17:10:44+0000 Johannes Thyssen Tishman<jtt@openbsd.org>:
>>  From [1]:
>>> CMake 3.29 and below provide a FindBoost module, but it needs constant
>>> updates to keep up with upstream Boost releases. Upstream Boost 1.70
>>> and above provide a BoostConfig.cmake package configuration file.
>>> find_package(Boost CONFIG) finds the upstream package directly,
>>> without the find module.
>>>
>>> CMake 3.30 and above prefer to not provide the FindBoost module so
>>> that find_package(Boost) calls, without the CONFIG or NO_MODULE
>>> options, find the upstream BoostConfig.cmake directly. This policy
>>> provides compatibility for projects that have not been ported to use
>>> the upstream Boost package.
>>>
>>> The OLD behavior of this policy is for find_package(Boost) to load
>>> CMake's FindBoost module. The NEW behavior is for find_package(Boost)
>>> to search for the upstream BoostConfig.cmake.
>>>
>>> This policy was introduced in CMake version 3.30. It may be set by
>>> cmake_policy() or cmake_minimum_required(). If it is not set, CMake
>>> warns, and uses OLD behavior.
>> So if a project explicitly sets a policy version >= 3.30, CMake won't
>> look for the FindBoost.cmake module installed by devel/cmake/core and
>> will instead look for the BoostConfig.cmake file which our devel/boost
>> does not install.
>>
>> I bumped into this issue in my last two port updates (graphics/pcl and
>> devel/cli11), so I'd like to propose installing the BoostConfig.cmake
>> and related CMake files provided by upstream. I assume we will have to
>> do this sooner or later anyways.
>>
>> The patch 'patch-tools_boost_install_boost-install_jam' is hacky, but
>> without it the relative path to the 'include' directory that's generated
>> in the CMake files ends up pointing to /usr (e.g. [2] line 26) and I
>> couldn't figure out why. I'd be happy to see a better solution.
>>
>> If this revision is acceptable, would it be possible to run it through a
>> bulk? I tested both graphics/pcl (with a patch to fix finding boost
>> removed) and devel/cli11 with the changes below and had no issues.
>>
>> [1]https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/policy/CMP0167.html#policy:CMP0167
>> [2] /usr/local/lib/cmake/boost_atomic-1.84.0/boost_atomic-config.cmake
> Please find below a revised patch with the following feedback addressed:
>
> - boost*-config.cmake files associated with libraries only shipped by
>    the -md subpackage have now been moved to their corresponding PLIST-md
> - Add VERSION to SUBST_VARS to avoid PLIST churn on updates
> - As requested, remove rsadowski@ from the MAINTAINER

What was the reason for moving the SO_VERSION change from Jamroot to 
boostcpp.jam?

That boost-install.jam patch is annoying as it just points to something 
not being right
somewhere else. The patch should have a brief comment at the top.

Usually cp(1) isn't used for an install target. Probably better to copy 
the pax / find example
a bit above that.