From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-30 00:41:28
At Friday 2003-11-28 09:48, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > I notice you concentrate on the dynamic linking (i.e. I don't see any
> > static linked libraries mentioned). So why don't we just take it as
> > that I'm more concerned with static linking than dynamic.
>With static libraries, it's trivial for the user to change the name as
>neccessary, and causes no problems. Users don't need to change any of
>their projects; they only need to tweak the name of the installed
>library. With dynamic libraries the name is generally significant to
>the loader and must be chosen as part of the link process. You can't
>change the name of an .so or .dll without potentially breaking it. I
>suppose we could install version-number-less copies of the static
>libraries on Windows, and a version-number-less symlink on Unix, but
>this does not strike me as being anything like terrible emergency that
>you're making it out to be.
except, of course, that ALL of my work projects that use date_time and
filesystem quit compiling a few days back.
I don't see what's so hard about having the "install" maintain the versions
in the path rather than the name. Otherwise we're going to be inundated
with requests on how to fix things.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk