Subject: Re: [boost] [cmake] Minimum viable cmakeification for Boost
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-21 22:21:47
On 21/06/2017 22:51, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Niall Douglas wrote:
>> > But even if true, users of static library A that uses Asio will not
>> > necessarily want a header-only Boost.System, which means that static
>> > library A has to have a way to link to Asio "statically".
>> Surely users of static library A that uses ASIO will use the static
>> library edition of ASIO and the static library edition of System?
> Eh. All right.
> Static library A uses header-only library B uses non-header-only library
> C. Are we clear now. :-)
Oh sure. But if that were the case, there is likely a very good reason
for it, so it's desirable to be that way.
The real problem is when the end user doesn't want the specific
combination of hl-sl-dl chosen by the library devs for them. What I was
saying what to supply all-::hl, all-::sl and all-::dl where possible,
and that probably maps onto what 98% of end users will want. The number
which want some weird mashup for ::hl, ::sl and ::dl variants is likely
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk