From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-10 08:31:20
David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]>
>>Boost.Build V1 uses separate rules for static and dynamic libraries, and
>>I don't particularly like that.
>>For example, Linix apps with autoconf have "--enable-shared" configure
>>options, which just makes all the libraries static -- quite simple. Why
>>have two rules in Boost.Build. Take a look at Boost.Signals Jamfile --
>>it declares lib and dll target which are othewise identical.
>>I think we can introduce a new feature, say "shared", to control dll/lib
> Not everything can be built either static or shared. For example, see the
> threading library. Also see Boost.Python v2: you can build a static
> library, but it might only make sense if you're going to do embedding (not
You can do this with requirements.
> It's easy enough to make a single rule which does both/either if you have
> separate rules, but can we go the other way if you collapse them into one?
I don't see a problem.
> Also, is this really worth spending cycles on at this point?
If Milestone2 is going to build Boost with gcc, we'd need to build
libraries also. We can agree to use separate rules for now, and revisit
this topic later, however.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk