On 6/25/17 1:49 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Niall Douglas wrote:
Yes, as much as I like - in principle - the separate ::static/::shared > targets, they are an "innovation" that raises certain questions to which > I don't have satisfactory answers, so I felt that the initial > cmake-ification should not innovate in this area.
They are definitely not an innovation.
It would have been an innovation for me, had I tried to produce such a design. My CMake knowledge only goes so far. When library A depends on B depends on C, and the end user links to A::static, B::shared, and C::header, I don't know how to write the CMakeLists of A, B, and C so that to make this work, and my - admittedly limited - understanding is that how to make this work is not yet common CMake knowledge.
FWIW - In my CMakeLists.txt for the serialization library one selects which variant he wants to build static or shared. The fact that I forgot how I did it speaks well for CMake. It couldn't have been too hard otherwise I wouldn't have done it.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost