--- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 03:03:54 -0700, Nicholas Wourms wrote: > > > > --- Alan Hourihane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 10:25:48 +0200, Alexander Gottwald > wrote: > > > > That is a windows problem. The XFree libraries are in fact > > > versioned. > > > > (libXaw.so.6.1 vs libXaw.so.7.0) > > > > > Alexander, > > > > > > You've hit a sore spot here. The issue of Xft1 vs Xft2 was only > the > > > starting of a larger picture. > > > > > > Your right in the fact that all libraries are versioned, and we > > > don't > > > respect that for any library. libX11.a should really be > > > libX11-6_2.a etc > > > or some equivalent of. > > > > > > We also need to consider backwards compatibility as to not > break > > > older > > > applications. > > > > > > I've fixed the immediate problem and can re-instate Xft1. But > any > > > want to pipe up with anything on this topic ? > > > > Like it or not, if we make the switch we will break binary > > compatibility. This is, of course, because runtime libraries > cannot > > be symlinked on Windows. Still, this is something that will have > to > > be done sooner or later (again perhaps for the 4.3.0 release?). > > However, I think the benefits in the longrun will outweigh the > > incovience of a few questions from people caught in this switch. > > I'll let Harold voice his mind on this now... > > We don't have to symlink - we can copy libX11-6_2.dll to libX11.dll > etc > to maintain compatibility and bug fixes to these kinds of > libraries.
How about a seperate package call X11-compat for this? Just seems like a waste of space for people who don't care. > But I think we really need to do this for 4.3.0 and just update the > FAQ for those caught in the switch - like you say. Sounds good to me. I propose the following as an adaptation of the "generally accepted naming conventions" used for native cygwin libraries [makes our X libraries more unixy]: ---------- |libXfoo:| ---------- library name used on *nix: libXfoo.0.0.so *for Cygwin: ============ runtime name: ------------- "cyg" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + <minor> + "." + "dll" [i.e. cygXfoo.0.0.dll] shared import name: ------------------- A)"lib" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + <minor> + "." + "dll" + "." + "a" [i.e. libXfoo.0.0.dll.a] B)Symlink A -> "lib" + <basename> + "." + <major> + "." + "dll" + "." + "a" [i.e. libXfoo.0.0.dll.a -> libXfoo.0.dll.a] C)Symlink A -> "lib" + <basename> + "." + "dll" + "." + "a" [i.e. libXfoo.0.0.dll.a -> libXfoo.dll.a] static import name: ------------------- "lib" + <basename> + "." + "a" final outcome: -------------- /usr/X11R6/bin/cygXfoo.0.0.dll /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.0.0.dll.a /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.0.dll.a /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.dll.a /usr/X11R6/lib/libXfoo.a Just a thought, anyhow... Cheers, Nicholas __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
