About that eeevil library naming decision...

[Alexandre Julliard]

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.

> Also, there'll always be global installs with wine library paths
> added to /etc/ld.so.conf. How would you avoid conflicts then with
> equally named libraries in other /etc/ld.so.conf paths ??

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.

> OK, who thinks that this is a good thing to do ?
> Who doesn't ?

I don't. If you really want to do something about it, consider working
on dll separation so that we can finally put all dlls in the right
place.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com