Hi Francois,
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:33:06 +0200
Francois Tigeot wrote:
> What you said about the gbuild migration makes sense, but I have the
> impression you were thinking about removing completely the suffix.
> [...]
> The final library name would be the same, it would not be problematic
> to
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 04:05:16PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:10:13 +0200
> Francois Tigeot wrote:
>
> > It was my understanding the UNO libraries didn't use DLLPOSTFIX but
> > now you're making me doubt.
> > Is there a canonical list of them I could check ?
>
> As
On Tue, 31 May 2011 08:10:13 +0200
Francois Tigeot wrote:
> Hi Bjoern,
>
> It was my understanding the UNO libraries didn't use DLLPOSTFIX but
> now you're making me doubt.
> Is there a canonical list of them I could check ?
As Michael and Caolan already said, no problem there, go for it!
Best,
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 08:10 +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote:
> It was my understanding the UNO libraries didn't use DLLPOSTFIX but now
> you're making me doubt.
They do not :-)
> Is there a canonical list of them I could check ?
ls ure/lib # in an install ;-)
ATB,
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 08:10 +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote:
> Is there a canonical list of them I could check ?
In an install set these should be in /path/to/libreoffice/ure/lib and/or
dig around for SCP2_URE_foo in scp2
C.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
L
Hi Bjoern,
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:19:30PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:41:20 +0200
> Francois Tigeot wrote:
>
> > One of your links is about a change of API but there would be none.
> > The consensus seemed to be this DLL suffix stuff was absolutely
> > unused and
On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 18:56 +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:26:30AM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > 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 d
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 10:18 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Yes, as long as you are only talking about the li, lx, ss, si type
> postfixes of applications and indeed no UNO library accidentally uses
> those prefixes too. The gcc3-style postfixes certainly are used for UNO
> libs.
So it
Hi Francois,
On Mon, 30 May 2011 09:40:27 +0200
Francois Tigeot wrote:
> 1. Unify DLLPOSTFIX values. Set it in one common .mk if possible
>
> This can be done now
Yes, as long as you are only talking about the li, lx, ss, si type
postfixes of applications and indeed no UNO library accidental
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:32:48AM -0600, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> So if we keep DLLPOSTFIX, just unify its value on all platforms, that doesn't
> really affect the complexity of the makefiles at all. We just lose one
> non-conditional simple assignment line from each platform-specific .mk file.
>
If it is not about those, I dont object, although I do not see to much
> use in it (I would have waited for the 4 API and changed all names --
> including the API ones -- then).
I mostly agree with Björn here. In my opinion the reason to drop DLLPOSTFIX
would be to make the makefiles clearer. Not
Just to clarify:
On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:27:53 +0200
Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> That would still be a change for LibreOffice4 ...
(if we also change UNO API libs)
> > If there is no objection, I intend to begin the work in a few days.
>
> ... which is why I object.
(in that case).
If it is
Hi Francois,
On Sun, 29 May 2011 18:56:46 +0200
Francois Tigeot wrote:
> In a first stage, the build system would still be using DLLPOSTFIX
> as-is, only with a unique value.
That would still be a change for LibreOffice4 ...
> If there is no objection, I intend to begin the work in a few days.
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 li
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 11:43 -0600, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > What I would like to know is if there's still a reason to use this suffix
> > in 2011.
>
> Only backward compatibility of binary extensions
Extensions aren't supposed to link (or be able to link) against
DLLPOSTFIX libs AFAIR, they're o
> The empty one is from unxiosr.mk and I suspect the platform doesn't build
Indeed not, unxiosr is the just started extremely unfinished partial port to
iOS ;) Far from ready, if it ever will be. Shared libraries / dynamic modules
can't even be used for non-system code on iOS so no "DLL suffix"
Hi Michael,
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 04:49:58PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> If we are talking about the 'li' suffix in libswli.so - then I don't
> see much good reason for that really.
> Presumably extensions use only the standard, stable UNO APIs - and none
> of them use fooli.so
Hi Francois,
If we are talking about the 'li' suffix in libswli.so - then I don't
see much good reason for that really.
On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 20:03 +0200, Francois Tigeot wrote:
> Where can I find more about this ? I've found some openoffice.org web pages
> about extensions but nothing re
Hi Tor,
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:43:52AM -0600, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > What I would like to know is if there's still a reason to use this suffix
> > in 2011.
>
> Only backward compatibility of binary extensions, I think? But how many of
> the OOo/LO shared libraries do (binary) extensions l
Hi Bjoern,
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 18:45:53 +0200
> Francois Tigeot wrote:
>
> > What I would like to know is if there's still a reason to use this
> > suffix in 2011.
> Unfortunately, yes: compatibility for C++ extensions -- at le
> What I would like to know is if there's still a reason to use this suffix in
> 2011.
Only backward compatibility of binary extensions, I think? But how many of the
OOo/LO shared libraries do (binary) extensions link to anyway?
--tml
___
LibreOffic
Hi Francois,
On Sun, 22 May 2011 18:45:53 +0200
Francois Tigeot wrote:
> I'm sure there was a good reason to use it in 1988. Or maybe not, I
> can't possibly pretend to know.
Probably not. I'd rather guess it was a workaround to a problem that
would have deserved a proper solution back then.
>
Hi,
I've recently created a pkgsrc package for LibreOffice, and been burned
by the DLLPOSTFIX / gb_Library_DLLPOSTFIX suffix added to library file
names.
I'm sure there was a good reason to use it in 1988. Or maybe not, I can't
possibly pretend to know.
What I would like to know is if there's sti
23 matches
Mail list logo
