Re: [jamboost] Re: Library file names

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-30 01:10:27

Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:

> 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.

1. I'm aware you are only interested in static libs, but I have to think of both.

2. It's easier for everyone to treat static libs and dynamic libs the same. As 
it's easier to explain a single uniform behavior, and for users to understand it.

3. For dynamic libs, you have to have the version as part of the lib name to 
prevent old programs from breaking if new libraries are installed.

Therefore having the version in a subdir is repetitive, as the version in the 
lib name won't go away.

Given that, for non-Windows having a symlink without the version to the 
"current" versioned one is easy and an accepted practice because the dynamic 
loader loads based on the soname of the library.

But on Windows the best we can do is copy files around. So at best what we 
could do is copy the static libs and dynamic export LIB to unversioned files.

Both require a fair amount of bjam code for BBv1, as there is currently no 
functionality for that. The quickest would be to use hardlinks (or copy) 
instead, but there is some work in figuring out the correct names for things, 
and figuring out how to only copy the libs and not the DLLs/SOs. A few days of 
code and testing, which is time I don't have... Unless there are people out 
there willing to pay for the time ;-) And like always, code contributions are 
welcome.

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera_at_[hidden] - grafik_at_[hidden] - 102708583_at_icq