Re: [boost] Re: more config/auto_link nitpicks

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-04 15:17:04

[2003-11-04] David Abrahams wrote:

>"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> > As per our discussion could we remove this lib prefix? Who should
agree?
>>>
>>> We need something to differentiate between static libraries and dll
import
>>> libraries, I suppose a "static_" prefix would actually be my preference.
>>> One thing though - it is *extremely* painful to change and then test
this
>>> (as well as modifying and testing the header, I have a lot of regex
>>> makefiles that also have to change, and then be tested with every
possible
>>> build variant you can imagine :-(  ), changing the name of the prefix
>>> wouldn't be too bad for me though if that's really desirable.  To be
>> honest
>>> I'm not too unhappy with the current "lib" prefix though.
>>
>> And on second thoughts I'm not sure it's possible the remove the "lib"
>> prefix if we also want to ensure a consistent naming scheme across Unix
and
>> Windows platforms.
>
>Do we want to ensure that?

Now *that's* a good question ;-) Being consistent means less explaining we
have to do for some users. But at the same time it's more explaining to
users who don't expect it.

So the even better question... What are the expections for a static library
name on Windows??

By the way the lib prefix is required in pratically all Unix/Linux/BSD
systems.

-- grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- rrivera (at) acm.org - grafik (at) redshift-software.com
-- 102708583 (at) icq