From: Rene Rivera (grafik666_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-05 09:51:48
[2002-12-05] David Abrahams wrote:
>Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>> Or more specifically have a single feature, perhaps "<link>", that
>>> enumerates the above three options, instead of just false/true...
>>> <link>shared -- The default (#1 above).
>>> <link>static -- Internal libraries linked static (#2 above).
>>> <link>maximum-static -- As many libraries as possible are linked
>>> (#3 above)... In some platform, like MacOSX, some libraries must be
>>> Having it this way eliminates the need to worry about what the "runtime"
>>> libraries are.
>> That's an excellent idea! And even if somebody desires to find-tunue
>> C runtime only, we've a way for extension: just add new values to the
>> <link> feature. Maybe "maximum-static" can be "all-static"?
>> I'm eager to implement it as soon as possible. Anybody has objections?
>I think there was much confusion about the meaning of runtime-link in
>v1; many people thought they should set it to dynamic in order to
>build a shared library. I am concerned about the name "link" being
>even more confusable in that same way.
It does seem a bit confusing/ambiguos still. The two posibilities for
improvement I can think of are:
1. Change the name of the values...
<link>maximum-static-libraries, or <link>all-static-libraries
2. Or, the one I think is better, change the name of the feature...
<link-libraries>maximum-static, or <link-libraries>all-static
...and if you think "libraries" is long, we could sorten it to "libs".
-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden]
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