Some more information: Maybe we should use libwinecore_XXX.so and libwinedll_XXX.so for the naming scheme. That'd be pretty reasonable and cleaner/better than the current approach IMHO, as it'd clearly separate core/dll functionality in a good way.
Also, there'll always be global installs with wine library paths added to /etc/ld.so.conf. How would you avoid conflicts then with equally named libraries in other /etc/ld.so.conf paths ?? Further, a lot of other projects do the very same thing, probably to avoid the mess we're experiencing now in the first place: libgtk, libgimp, libgphoto_ libgnome, libvorbis, libgdk, ... (which also results in pretty long names, so this isn't really an argument for wine library naming any more) Now please tell me why this *shouldn't* be done. And I think you better had some real reasons for that... OK, who thinks that this is a good thing to do ? Who doesn't ? I'd certainly write that mega patch converting Wine to this naming scheme. -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/
