Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Thomas Heller (thom.heller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-20 14:52:12

Am 20.06.2017 4:47 nachm. schrieb "Thomas Heller" <thom.heller_at_[hidden]>:

Am 20.06.2017 4:31 nachm. schrieb "Peter Dimov via Boost" <

Thomas Heller wrote:

> 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?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Having two targets doesn't mean
that both get built. If the project links to the target, it gets built,
otherwise not.

If I want to distribute my library in compiled form, I need to provide
both, no?

Doesn't make a lot of sense. I have to either way... The difference is that
I have to decide which target to use eventually.

So it's a question which solution puts more burden on the developer, which
I'm not sure about right now...

Unsubscribe & other changes:

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