> > I suppose - but it feels wrong to build a winelib app foo, and
> > end up with a 'foo' and a 'foo.so', where there's no real code in
> > 'foo'.
>
> I can't agree more! I keep wishing I could think of a better
> reason than that though. Alexandre has this annoying habit of
> making decisions based on practical things, rather than either
> your or my high moral standards <g>.
well, from what I can see, except for the .so lib name, the 'foo' exec
shall be the same for all winelib apps (in the Alexandre's approach)
we could in that case, only build for a winelib app only a foo.so file,
and symlink the foo exec to a winelibexec program
when started this winelibexec program would get in argv[0] foo as
exec name, so winelibexec could decide to load (lib)foo.so file
and get the WinMain entry point from it
just my 2 cents
A+
--
---------------
Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/)
"The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle
