From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-06 06:03:07
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Markus Schöpflin wrote:
>> 4. Is it really a good decision to drop the distinction between
>> lib and dll?
> I can't say, in general. From my point of view --- yes. I never
> understood why I should declare two target to achive the same goal
> -- building a library. Linux users are assustomed to easy switching
> static and dynamic linking. If you have "lib" and "dll", you'll
> either build them all (and that seems unnecessary), or you have
> introduce features that control if either one should be build ---
> i.e. you're back to "shared".
What about the problem that you usually have additional sources for
building a DLL on windows? The code for DllMain() for example. Can I
specify that somehow?
By the way, what is the current state of the discussion? I have to
admit I somehow lost track of it. I have to agree with you, the time
lag in mail delivery does make it difficult to follow. Did you decide
we need two features for the whole issue or a single one?
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