[boost] Re: more config/auto_link nitpicks

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-05 20:06:36

Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:

> At 07:02 AM 11/4/2003, John Maddock wrote:
>  >> > 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.
>
> Is consistent naming across platforms important? I would have thought
> naming consistent with the platform's usual conventions would be more
> important.

That is the question.  How should we choose one over the other?

[repeating info already posted: The usual conventions for Windows
don't work for at least some Windows compilers (Cygwin GCC).]

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com