From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-20 04:19:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> > Did this clarify anything?
> Yes, thanks. Now, IIUC:
> a. you are proposing to have both "bubble-up" and "automatic" linking
> b. These are really the same thing when linking statically
Yes, for user. They are implemented slightly differently, but that's
> Why allow both? You wrote:
> "It was proposed by Ali, IIRC, that putting library in sources of
> other library does the right thing: use direct linking if the
> library is build as shared, and use bubble-up if library is linked
> as static."
> If that's the "right thing", allowing both seems overly complicated.
> One simple syntax should achieve what you want. Probably I'm missing
No, you're not missing anything. One reason why I'd like to allow bubble-up
linking is that it's for free. It's just combination of <use> requirement,
which we have, and <library> property in usage requirements, which we have as
well. We need <library> property in any case, for example so that I can put
<library>foo in project requirement.
Now that you've asked, I am not sure bubble-up linking should be in docs.
Maybe, someone would like to avoid linking to library sources and pass
libraries up to dependents. I don't know why this should be needed, though.
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