About that eeevil library naming decision...

[Andreas Mohr]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 11:47:31AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Andreas Mohr <andi at rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de> writes:
> 
> > Maybe we should use libwinecore_XXX.so and libwinedll_XXX.so for the
> > naming scheme. That'd be pretty reasonable and cleaner/better than
> > the current approach IMHO, as it'd clearly separate core/dll functionality
> > in a good way.
> 
> The separation will be done by putting dlls in a separate directory
> (usually /usr/lib/wine) which is a lot cleaner than creating 150 files
> in /usr/lib, no matter how they are named.

But some people DON'T separate it.
(for various reasons, which might only be evident in the future)

Furthermore, having tons of hopelessly chaotically named libraries
is everything but clean.

> Wine dll path won't be added to /etc/ld.so.conf. But in any case the
> plan is that dlls in /usr/lib/wine are named without the lib prefix to
> make it clear you can't link to them.
Fact is that a LOT of people/distributors still add it to ld.so.conf.

Anyway, I didn't know about the "omit lib" plan yet.
That'd actually be a rather usable choice, since that'd really eliminate
the conflicts.

But are you sure that you can just omit the lib prefix on *all* supported
environments ?

-- 
Andreas Mohr                        Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany
Tel. +49 7159 800604                http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/