Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
The separation will be done by putting dlls in a separate directory (usually /usr/lib/wine) which is a lot cleaner than creating 150 files in /usr/lib, no matter how they are named. > 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 ?? Wine dll path won't be added to /etc/ld.so.conf. But in any case the plan is that dlls in /usr/lib/wine are named without the lib prefix to make it clear you can't link to them. > OK, who thinks that this is a good thing to do ? > Who doesn't ? I don't. If you really want to do something about it, consider working on dll separation so that we can finally put all dlls in the right place. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
