Subject: Re: [boost] Cmake
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-25 21:56:22
On 6/25/17 1:49 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Niall Douglas wrote:
>> > Yes, as much as I like - in principle - the separate
>> ::static/::shared > targets, they are an "innovation" that raises
>> certain questions to which > I don't have satisfactory answers, so I
>> felt that the initial > cmake-ification should not innovate in this area.
>> They are definitely not an innovation.
> It would have been an innovation for me, had I tried to produce such a
> design. My CMake knowledge only goes so far. When library A depends on B
> depends on C, and the end user links to A::static, B::shared, and
> C::header, I don't know how to write the CMakeLists of A, B, and C so
> that to make this work, and my - admittedly limited - understanding is
> that how to make this work is not yet common CMake knowledge.
FWIW - In my CMakeLists.txt for the serialization library one selects
which variant he wants to build static or shared. The fact that I
forgot how I did it speaks well for CMake. It couldn't have been too
hard otherwise I wouldn't have done it.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk