On 21/06/2017 22:51, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
Niall Douglas wrote:
But even if true, users of static library A that uses Asio will not necessarily want a header-only Boost.System, which means that static library A has to have a way to link to Asio "statically".
Surely users of static library A that uses ASIO will use the static library edition of ASIO and the static library edition of System?
Eh. All right.
Static library A uses header-only library B uses non-header-only library C. Are we clear now. :-)
Oh sure. But if that were the case, there is likely a very good reason for it, so it's desirable to be that way. The real problem is when the end user doesn't want the specific combination of hl-sl-dl chosen by the library devs for them. What I was saying what to supply all-::hl, all-::sl and all-::dl where possible, and that probably maps onto what 98% of end users will want. The number which want some weird mashup for ::hl, ::sl and ::dl variants is likely very low. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/