[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

library names


I know this was discussed very shortly on our meeting in Feb, but Ralf
Flaxa and I were not sure, if there was a decision.

In a discussion we had the following question:

> What will the naming convention be for /usr/lib/*std*
> In other words these:
> /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.9
> /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.2.9.0
> With this naming convention you can't tell if the lib was created on
> a libc5, glibc2.0, or glibc2.1 machine...

this is not fully correct.  At least it's no problem to decide if a lib
was build with libc5 or glibc.  I'm not sure, but would it also be
possible, to change ldso that way, that it can make a difference between
glibc2.0 and glibc2.1 libraries (maybe with the assumption "no versioning"
-> "2.0").

> Redhat's next release (glibc 2.1 base) has a new naming convention which 
> incorporates the glibc version into the name...ie:
> /usr/lib/libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.a
> /usr/lib/libstdc++-libc6.1-1.a.2 -> libstdc++-2-libc6.1-1-2.9.0.a

On our meeting we agreed not to worry too much about backward
compatibility due to glibc versions.  But imho this has to be covered
in LSB anyway.

Please Christian, give me another chance and explain me, why this ugly
names in your opinion are a MUST. Thanks.


  Burchard Steinbild <bs@suse.de>
                                                 SuSE GmbH
  Tel: +49-911-74053-0                           Schanzaeckerstr. 10
  Fax: +49-911-7417755                           90443 Nuernberg, Germany

Reply to: