2025-03-08T02:15:51-0500 Brad Smith <brad@comstyle.com>:
> On 2025-03-02 12:42 p.m., Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote:
> > 2025-03-02T00:20:07-0500 Brad Smith<brad@comstyle.com>:
> > > 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?
> > To patch the library versions *only* and not boost's overall version.
> > With the Jamroot patch, CMake files would be installed under
> > /usr/local/lib/cmake/{Boost-23.0,boost_*-23.0}/.
> > 
> > > 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.
> > I agree, I just haven't been able to find out how the relative path to
> > the 'include' directory in the CMake files (e.g. see [2] line 26) is
> > being generated. From what I read in Jamroot, bootstrap.sh and
> > lib/config/configure, 'includedir' already defaults to
> > ${LOCALBASE}/include and passing --includedir=${LOCALBASE}/include or
> > --prefix=${LOCALBASE} (redundant) does not help. Maybe you can find a
> > better solution.
> > 
> > > Usually cp(1) isn't used for an install target. Probably better to
> > > copy the pax / find example a bit above that.
> > See diff below with your feedback addressed.
> 
> 
> Thanks. LGTM. OK.

Committed, thanks!