Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [ot] choosing a build system
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-12 11:40:56

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> You mean, in a single build run?
> This is exactly the sort of situation where I think the abstraction
> capabilities you're wishing for are a net loss.  It's not that much
> better to write
>     lib foo : a.cpp b.cpp : : <link>static <link>shared ;
>     (or is it <link>static/shared?  I forget.  And that's part of the
>      problem)
> than it is to write
>     set(sources a.cpp b.cpp)
>     add_library(foo STATIC ${sources})
>     add_library(foo SHARED ${sources})
> and the latter one matches up really well with what users understand.
> Furthermore, anyone who wants to build a library both ways with less
> boilerplate can write a simple function that does it.

Except that not all variants should be build on all platforms. Linux
(probably) doesn't need the static ones. And on Windows you're missing
the static runtime one.

Your rules don't appear to take care of variant naming either.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at