Re: [Mingw-users] Will the real libiconv please stand up! Was : Re: [Mingw-user s] baby steps, an half-finshed packaging of libiconv (very boring)

[Kees Z. <kz...@us...>]

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- 
Van: "Tor Lillqvist" 

>  > 2. Versioning of DLL's: should they have version numbers in the name, 
>  > and if yes, what kind: similar to cygwin (with a single number; see 
>  > http://home.att.net/~perlspinr/libversioning.html) 
>  > or some Unix variant (with two or three numbers; see 
>  > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Versioning)?
> 
> Don't those two links describe the same thing, i.e. the
> current:revision:age style of thinking?
> 
I have not used libtool extensively, but I have always thought it builds
shared libraries with extension c:r:a (e.g. libfoo.so.5.4.3). But 
apparently I'm wrong, and  there is no difference.

> One slight problem with the gnuwin32 packaging style IMHO: I would
> prefer to be able to unzip many packages in a single location, so that
> PATH doesn't grow for each package installed. The "bin", "lib",
> "include" and "man" subdirectories won't normally have clashing file
> names. But the contents of the "contrib" subdirectories will
> clash. Wouldn't it be better to have subdirectories named after the
> package in "contrib"?
> 
I agree. The same holds for the "src" subdirectory.

Kees Zeelenberg