On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 13:52 +0200, Armin Burgmeier wrote: > On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 06:15 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 22:50 +0200, Armin Burgmeier wrote: > > > Yes. We will have to think of a naming convention for those binaries. > > > gtkmm-2.4-vc9.dll? (in contrast to gtkmm-2.4.dll for VS 2005, which we > > > might then rename to gtkmm-2.4-vc8.dll, possibly breaking compatibility) > > If we use the boost conventions, as suggested by Cedric on your blog, > then it would probably look like "gtkmm-vc90-(d-)2_4.dll". > > Should we do the same for the MSVC2005 DLLs?
Sounds good to me. > And while we are at it, we > could do the same for the property sheets (to, say, > gtkmm-vc80-(d-)2_4.vsprops). We probably just need to keep the old ones, > so existing projects can still find them. Yes, please. Make sure that duplication is documented on the "building" page, please. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
