Re: [jamboost] Re: <library> (Was: I'm back!)

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-17 03:39:10

Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
> 
> > I don't find it confusing yet. Most linux application have
> > "--enable-shared" or "--disable-shared" switch to configure, which
> > controls how libraries internal to application are build -- either
> > as static or as shared. I think it's quite reasonable: most
> > libraries can be build and used in either way, so it's just another
> > features.
> 
> So shared=true will map to --enable-shared and shared=false to 
> --disable-shared. Did I get it right?

Yes.

> > Regarding <lib>my / <dll>my. In V2 we don't use those prefixes that
> > identify type, we just don't need them. And further, as I say
> > above, most of the time I don't want the request specifically
> > static or shared library.
> 
> Well, yes, during development I don't care either. Especially on unix 
> platforms. For windows it's more complicated, anyway. For a build that 
> ships to a customer it's not that easy. :-)

And when you run in problems, you can control each library individually.

> >> There is another use case I have: Linking to oracle libs. On most
> >> platforms, you _have_ to specify very exactly what get's linked
> >> and how. Currenty I'm using the fact that a rule name can appear
> >> as the prerequisite of a target. For example:
> >>
> >> exe hello : hello.cpp : link_to_oracle_libs ;
> >>
> >> and link_to_oracle_libs is a rule which inserts the right things
> >> in the linker command line depending on the current build
> >> settings and platform. It would be great if something like this
> >> would be supported in v2 as well.
> >
> > I think a minimal form of this is already supported. You can
> > declare new target type ORACLE_EXE, and specify that it should be
> > building in the same way as EXE, but with certain additional
> > properties. Those properties can be computed dynamically.
> 
> This will do in my special use case. But a more general solution to 
> this would be nice.

Do you have an idea of an approach that you'd like. I think that in 
general, if you want something special when linking certain kind of 
apps, you have to either use a different main target type, or some 
additional requirement. In either was, some custom code will be invoked 
to adjust build properties.

- Volodya