[CMake] Convenience lib vs static library
apaku at gmx.de
Sun Nov 23 04:04:31 EST 2008
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.
Your life would be very empty if you had nothing to regret.
More information about the CMake