Re: [Mingw-users] library name

[Keith M. <kei...@to...>]

Julien Lecomte wrote, quoting me:
>> I was thinking of the scenario wher [sic] ...

Okay.  Okay.  Did I really miss the final `e' off `where'?  It's a
typo, obviously...  :-)

>> ... a user downloads the prebuilt
>> binary tarballs, and unpacks those in place of an existing 
installation.
>> Such a user won't be using Makefiles, to perform an upgrade.
>
> In that case, we can't rely on the user having a mSys installation. Such 

> a script should either be a batch script (ugh !) or run from the 
installer.

Yep.  And since not everyone wants to use the installer, the only
real option is a cmd.exe batch script;  (couldn't get much yukier,
really).

>>> Just by modifying the configure script, we can add an option such as 
>>> --with-new-naming (or --with-libtool-naming) that would take care of 
>>> building and installing of whichever the user wants.
>>
>> Again, this won't help for a upgrade based on binary tarballs.
>>
>> What would be required is:--
>>
>> - Tarballs are built, exclusively with legacy library file names.
>> - User downloads and unpacks these, overwriting similarly named
>>   files in his/her existing installation.
>> - User runs script, removing any import libraries with new names,
>>   for which a legacy named replacement is present, and renames the
>>   legacy named replacement with the new name.
>
> Didn't we settle on the fact that using a new naming convention should 
> be reserved to 'power users' and be more or less officially unsupported 
?

I didn't realise we had actually reached any final consensus.

> I think we should only let the people who build from sources have the 
> option to use the new naming scheme for now. If the new naming proves to 

> be stable and better, then in a second stage provide the script for all 
> users and make the transition.

Hmm.  I wonder how many will do that?  I've only ever done it for the
i586-mingw32-gcc on my Linux box;  for the native toolchain on Win2K,
I'm happy to use the binary downloads from the SF mirrors.

> I'll nevertheless see to create a script, in sh and bat format, and also 

> see to offer a patch of configure/makefile; it'll take my mind off 
> pipes, pty's and terminals for a while. I'll also pre-test it on cygwin, 

> and in a cross-compiler environment.

It'll be interesting to see what you can conjure up.

>> Note that it isn't acceptable to erase the original installation,
>> before progressing an upgrade;  that could remove more than the
>> upgrade will replace, particularly if the user is in the habit of
>> installing mingwPORTs, or other additional packages, into the
>> MinGW tree, (which *is* the default for mingwPORTs).
> 
> Oh, so we can't rely on 'format c:' ?

ROFL!  Oh, *I* wouldn't even bother with that!  Just bung in whatever
Linux Installer DVD you fancy, reboot, select the option to "Delete all
existing partitions", and install using all of /dev/hda.  :-)

Cheers,
Keith.