[CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 23.11.08 08:53:44, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote:
> Isn't a static lib still better than nothing? I was thinking at the
> same thing this morning - why not use static libs and simply don't
> install them.
> 
> I agree, this still has the problem of missing lib dependencies that
> you have to solve by hand (with convenience libs, if you have libB
> that depends on libA, you simply need to link with libB and the linker
> solves your dependencies automatically; with static libs I guess
> you'll need to link with -lB -lA), but I guess static libs could cover
> a vast number of cases where an autotools developer would use a
> convenience lib.
> 
> Am I missing something?

This is Ok for building an executable, but linking a static lib into a
shared lib is completely unportable and not supported on all operating
systems that cmake supports. Thats why its not done.

Andreas

-- 
Your life would be very empty if you had nothing to regret.