On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 11:47:31AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> 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.
Presumably there is no reason not to give these files a different
suffix as well? Then there will be even less confusion :-)
I presume that if an ELF file has a 'needed' entry of "wine/xyz.abc"
the dynamic linker will correctly locate the dependant library.
But for most of wine, they are not ELF and wine does all the
loading anyway.
David
--
David Laight: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
