On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, [email protected] wrote:
> pkg-config libpcre2
> (empty)
>
> Quick look shows, instead
>
> pkg-config libpcre2-8 --libs --cflags
> -I/usr/local/include -L/usr/local/lib64 -lpcre2-8
>
> pkg-config libpcre2-posix --libs --cflags
> -I/usr/local/include -L/usr/local/lib64 -lpcre2-posix
> Should there be just an unversioned 'libpcre2.pc' and
> /usr/local/lib64/libpcre2.so as well?
I've (at last) got round to looking at this properly. This was
deliberately done like this so that the -8, -16, and -32 libraries were
all similar in their naming conventions.
> I'd suspect upstreams may attempt to default to libpcre2.{pc,so}, as
> for libpcre.
>
> Or, are there specific reasons NOT to?
Hmm. You may be right, but I think, at least until we get some more
complaints, I'd rather leave it as it is. I realize that on many systems
only one library will be installed, and people might like to have it
called libpcre2, but I'd rather keep the names clear.
Philip
--
Philip Hazel
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
