Re: [Mingw-users] library name

[Julien L. <ju...@fa...>]

On 27/03/2006 18:18, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> Julien Lecomte wrote, quoting me:
>>> ... 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).

I've noticed that any change in any project often requires the worst 
case scenario ;-)

>> 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 realize we had actually reached any final consensus.

Quoting your email of March 23:
"I agree with Earnie; it is best for us to retain the legacy 
infrastructure.  If any user wishes to adopt an alternative convention, 
they are free to do so, AT THEIR OWN RISK, [...] however, I would be 
most reluctant to support its use, as an official MinGW installation 
option."

Maybe I extrapolated your words, but it seemed clear to me that brutally 
changing everything for everyone was not a 'good thing' (tm).

Anyway, I wasn't in disagreement (for once ?) with Earnie's or your POV. 
The changes that the .dll.a naming convention presents are small in 
benefit compared to what it could break. That's why I support the fact 
there should be a unsupported staging period. If all goes well, then 
maybe, we could make it official in 6 months, a year, or even more; 
provided that at least others have tested this naming scheme.

Julien