huge library renaming ?

[Bernhard Rosenkraenzer]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Ove Kaaven wrote:

> > AFAIR there have been several naming conflicts with other projects
> > (libole, ...), and people who need to remove a previous Wine install
> > from their system manually have a rather hard time...
>
> Any reason for doing this?
> I can't think of any...
>
> The Debian packages work perfectly, without any potential for conflict.
> They install the dlls into /usr/lib/wine, do *not* put /usr/lib/wine into
> ld.so.conf, while Wine loads the dlls from /usr/lib/wine, not from
> /usr/lib (and Wine's own configure adds rpath stuff last time I looked)

The Red Hat package does the same thing, but still I'd prefer renaming the
libraries for all the people who compile from source without knowing all
the details.

You quickly get from "I'm a total newbie" to "I'm still a newbie, but I
know that basics and I've figured out I can install almost any program
from source by just typing "./configure --prefix=/usr; make install"!"
state. We shouldn't kill those users' normal libraries. [Yes, I know users
should in theory put all their stuff to /usr/local, but I haven't seen
many people who actually do]

Either rename them, or make configure intelligent enough to do
/usr/lib/wine trickery automatically (if prefix=/usr) unless explicitly
told not to do it...

LLaP
bero