From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Sokolovsky To: Chris Faylor Subject: Re[2]: DLL naming conventions Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 09:10:00 -0000 Message-id: <12795.000901@is.lg.ua> References: <20000831115326.E5412@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00008.html Hello Chris, Chris Faylor 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