Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E0BB@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: "'cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com'" Subject: RE: DLL naming conventions Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:01:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Faylor [mailto:cgf AT cygnus DOT com] > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 5:53 PM > To: Chris Faylor > Cc: paul-ml AT is DOT lg DOT ua > Subject: Re: DLL naming conventions > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:14:56PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > >From: Paul Sokolovsky > >Chris Faylor wrote: > > The reason that we use "cyg" on the tcl libs is that they > contain local > cygwin mods, making those DLLs different from the ones already > distributed by Scriptics. Exactly why I would like to have cygfoo.dll for library foo compiled on cygwin, to differentiate from libfoo.dll (or was it foo.dll) as provided on the official distribution on foo.org site :-) > > I think it is unlikely that a person will be attempting to > use both the > cygwin and mingw libpng DLLs at the same time and have absolutely no > desire to engage in a massive DLL renaming campaign, especially given > the attendant confusion that will be a guaranteed result. Now but the fancy GIMP on NT package use some libtiff.dll and some other cygwin ported package will use the cygwin-compiled libtiff.dll; if they are both in the path we WILL have problems ;-( > > >At the same time, GNU has convention of prefixing libraries with > >'lib'. > > This is a longstanding *UNIX* convention. It's not a GNU convention. > > >Let's recommend for cygwin use prefix 'cyg' instead (for *dlls > >only*) - it is consistent with existing practise. As for mingw32, > >we'll leave it 'lib' - after all, it's the most native GNU-Win32 > >target, let it use defualt conventions. All other, being > >superstructures on win32, to use distinguishable naming scheme". > > If every package maintainer wants to follow this (to me) > ill-considered > plan, that's fine. Just as long as I don't have to support it. > > IMO, cygwin is supposed to be UNIX for Windows. If people are looking > for libraries, they don't look for 'cygreadline.dll' they look for > 'libreadline.dll'. Sure? I, as a longtime SUN user and Linux user would rather search libreadline.so.X.Y but my HP friends will rather look for libreadline.sl :-) So long for the UNIX-on-Windows historical compatibility... searching for cygreadline.dll is not worst and has the advantage of being explicit! > > >CF> Expecting cygwin to change its conventions is just a tad > >CF> bit arrogant, don't you think? > > > >Chris, you often ask strange questions. If, I say - if, > someone would > >propose to change its conventions, I'd first listen one's reasoning > >before making my opinion whether it is arrogant or not. But what > >relation this has to our present conversation? > > I was under the impression that you'd already submitted your > reasoning. > Apparently you're having some kind of problems with library versioning > with your own project so your solution is to change cygwin's usages. > I'm sure that it must have occurred to you that cygwin has been using > the same conventions for years and that suddenly changing things now > will lead to confusion. I don't see any plan for dealing with the > confusion, however. > > I assume that if your plan is implemented you'll just disappear from > this mailing list and leave others to deal with the fallout. > > Perhaps this assumption is invalid, but I don't see you answering any > questions here on a day-to-day basis. > > However, it's all moot. The base cygwin release that I control is > not going to change any of its naming conventions. If all of the > other contributors want to adopt a new plan, that's fine with me. > Isn't free software wonderful? > > However, I will again state that I don't think that any change is > necessary. Don't know what to understand here: does that mean that if users have problems with cygwin they are urged to try some other UNIX-on-Windows layer rather than explain their problems and see how it could be found some acceptable and effective solution? Regards, Bernard -------------------------------------------- Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingéniérie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com b DOT dautrevaux AT usa DOT net -------------------------------------------- -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com