[CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

Ioan Calin Borcoman iborco at gmail.com
Sun Nov 23 04:24:23 EST 2008

Would it be possible to add support for libtool in a cmake module? I
understand that this would be against cmake's policy of not depending
on external apps, but it could be a transient solution until full
fledged support for convenience libs is added into cmake.

Has anybody already made such a libtool module for cmake?



On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> CMake mailing list
> CMake at cmake.org
> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

More information about the CMake mailing list