2012/11/6 Stephen Kelly <steve...@gmail.com> > Stephen Kelly wrote:
> <lots of amazing stuff> > So that it is fully aware of all of its [transitive] dependencies (and any > includes and compile defintions requirements) and I would use it like this: > > add_executable(foo_exe ...) > target_link_libraries(foo_exe boost::mpl) > Yeah, I like that!! That breaks cycles, but it also breaks transitive dependencies, no? > I'm not sure if there's any good alternative to the _iface targets for > cycle-avoidance, but if it's good enough, and can be implemented, I'd say > it > would be feature-prooven. Why do we need to avoid cycles? CMake supports recursive dependencies among static libraries. For header only libraries, cycles should not be problematic either. I would say the graph of interfaces may be acyclic, as long as there is at most one shared library per strongly connected component. Cheers, Daniel
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
