Re[2]: DLL naming conventions

[Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml@is.lg.ua>]

Hello Chris,

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:

CF> I think it is unlikely that a person will be attempting to use both the
CF> cygwin and mingw libpng DLLs at the same time and have absolutely no
CF> desire to engage in a massive DLL renaming campaign, especially given
CF> the attendant confusion that will be a guaranteed result.

    Yes, you or me or other developer hardly will come to such
situation, simply because we know what installed where. But you know
those users - they always find their way to confusion.

>>At the same time, GNU has convention of prefixing libraries with
>>'lib'.

CF> This is a longstanding *UNIX* convention.  It's not a GNU convention.

    In this context, it matters that it is *GNU* convention. For
example, mingw32 hardly have something to do with Unix, still it's
Minimalist *GNU* target, so I do not consider dropping 'lib' prefix
for it (and thus, protect it from problems with compiler ABI differences
between msvc and gcc).

CF> I was under the impression that you'd already submitted your reasoning.
CF> Apparently you're having some kind of problems with library versioning
CF> with your own project so your solution is to change cygwin's usages.
CF> I'm sure that it must have occurred to you that cygwin has been using
CF> the same conventions for years and that suddenly changing things now
CF> will lead to confusion.  I don't see any plan for dealing with the
CF> confusion, however.

    Nope, my own project is under my control and I'll find way to make
*it* not to clutter with others. The same true for Cygwin - there's
authority to whom request can be made and either rejected or accepted
(or recommended or not). Unfortunately, there's noone to ask same
about Mingw32. Neither I myself could come to some decision concerning
it. For example, prefix for mingw32 could be changed, but to what?
Long names like 'mingw32' just too long. Short like "m32", "w32" are
missleading. Fairy understood like "gnu" is simply unright...

CF> I assume that if your plan is implemented you'll just disappear from
CF> this mailing list and leave others to deal with the fallout.

CF> Perhaps this assumption is invalid, but I don't see you answering any
CF> questions here on a day-to-day basis.

    Sorry, I do not plan any fallout. Neither there're any "my" plan.
Instead, I asked do you have one. As for answering questions, I
decided that I'd better do something now, I somewhat better at hacking
than at PR.

CF> However, it's all moot.  The base cygwin release that I control is
CF> not going to change any of its naming conventions.  If all of the
CF> other contributors want to adopt a new plan, that's fine with me.
CF> Isn't free software wonderful?

CF> However, I will again state that I don't think that any change is
CF> necessary.

    Ok. Thanks for discussion. I tried that and glad that it caught
some attention and it came that it's not all so bad (I'm about keeping
dll in the same dir as binaries, what is already done - sounds good for
me). Also, I'm glad that discussion catch attention of Gary Vaughan -
after all, he'd assessed my patch if I did it. So, if someone thinks that
*libtool* on cygwin should produce *dlls* with 'cyg' prefix, consider
dropping note to libtool@gnu.org , maybe it will be discussed there.

CF> cgf



--
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com