On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 06:00:20PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Why did we choose libapr-#.so? Most other libraries use libapr.so.#, > > which allows you to continue to do -lapr. Is there a reason we chose to > > do something different??? > > Subversion switched to naming our many libraries "libsvn_foo-1.so" > last June, based on this rationale: > > http://www106.pair.com/rhp/parallel.html > > I suspect that gstein may have spread the same gospel to APR > recently. :-)
Yes. APR is all about being a library, so supporting parallel installations is practically mandatory. Take a look at Berkeley DB as a great example. I have db1, db2, db-3.1, db-3.2, and db-4.0 on my machine. My applications can choose the particular version that they require. The .so.# does not provide for that. Similar issues arise for selecting the header files. I've got a sneaky feeling we may need to do more with the *-config scripts, but I'm not yet sure there. May need to write Havoc to get his feedback. Cheers, -g p.s. I suspect the Windows DLLs ought to get similarly renamed so they can avoid future DLL hell, too. -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
