On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:26:30AM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
>
> IMO, a consistent DLLPOSTFIX name is probably better than removing it
> totally, to avoid e.g. something like libCOMMONNAME${DLLPOSTFIX}.so
> becoming libCOMMONNAME${DLLPOSTFIX}.so colliding painfully with some
> common system lib like libCOMMON.so when linking or with the effectively
> non-hierarchal flat rpm autorequires/provides.
After a few days of idle meditation, I tend to agree with this position:
even though the DLLPOSTFIX character string has no useful purpose, it
would be best to ensure the libraries keep unique names, different from
system or third-party packages ones.
I'd like to use 'lo' as a common platform suffix.
In a first stage, the build system would still be using DLLPOSTFIX as-is,
only with a unique value.
In a second stage, the suffix would be directly integrated to the library
names, and could be kept or removed on a case-by-case basis.
If there is no objection, I intend to begin the work in a few days.
> Different DLLPOSTFIX files suggest that at some stage or other it was
> desirable to be able to have the .sos from different architecture
> side-by-side in the same dir. Maybe from an era before the separate arch
> dirs in the solver dir, dunno.
I vaguely remember someone mentionning a giant file server in Hamburg where
all binaries where stashed together ...
--
Francois Tigeot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
