Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-20 14:27:34

Am 20.06.2017 4:20 nachm. schrieb "Peter Dimov via Boost" <
boost_at_[hidden]>:

Thomas Heller wrote:

Err, I tend to highly disagree here. As a library author, I can not know if
> my users need a static or shared library.
>

You don't have to know. You provide library::static and library::shared
targets, they link to whatever they prefer.

That's problematic​. There are platforms which don't allow for shared
libraries. Is the implication that I always have two sets of binaries lying
around? Sometimes, objects need to be built differently, so I'll get to
build everything twice by default? That does not sound like a great
advantage and I miss the argument where BUILD_SHARED_LIBS actually fails to
deliver.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman
/listinfo.cgi/boost