Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-24 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 23 November 2008, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > 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

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Óscar Fuentes
Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Huh? I'm not aware of that as a limitation - you *do* need the objects >> in the static library to be >> position-independant or otherwise compiled as objects to go into a >> shared library. > > Thats ok on linux, to get it working on 64 bit syst

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Andreas Pakulat
On 23.11.08 20:56:24, James Mansion wrote: > Andreas Pakulat wrote: >> 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. >> > Huh? I'm not aware

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Óscar Fuentes
James Mansion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > I think Oscar is wrong here: > >>A convenience library works as an object file at link time: it is >>included on the final executable as any other object file. > > Or at least, that's an unnecessarily limited view. The terminology is > debatable

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread James Mansion
Andreas Pakulat wrote: 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. Huh? I'm not aware of that as a limitation - you *do* need the objects in

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Alan W. Irwin
On 2008-11-23 12:51+0100 Hendrik Sattler wrote: Am Sunday 23 November 2008 10:35:03 schrieb Andreas Pakulat: On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: 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 dependi

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Hendrik Sattler
Am Sunday 23 November 2008 10:35:03 schrieb Andreas Pakulat: > On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > > 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

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Andreas Pakulat
On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > 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

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Andreas Pakulat
On 23.11.08 11:24:23, Ioan Calin Borcoman wrote: > 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

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread Ioan Calin Borcoman
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 lib

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-23 Thread 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 b

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-22 Thread Ioan Calin Borcoman
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

Re: [CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-22 Thread Óscar Fuentes
"Sean Soria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > cmake claims to not support convenience libraries. Isn't building a > static library and then linking it into other libraries the same as a > convenience library? A convenience library works as an object file at link time: it is included on the final ex

[CMake] Convenience lib vs static library

2008-11-22 Thread Sean Soria
cmake claims to not support convenience libraries. Isn't building a static library and then linking it into other libraries the same as a convenience library? ___ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake