[Development] Alternative Proposal (was: Re: Summary of renaming changes)

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com
Fri Oct 19 14:24:09 CEST 2012

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:24:37PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> (1) It seems that there is an agreement on the naming of the libraries and 
> pkg-config files.
not really. i'm not as strongly opposed to it as to renaming the tools,
but i think renaming the libraries is mostly counterproductive, too:
- the change is linux-only. on mac it simply cannot be done (in the
  framework case) and on windows it is already this way. the latter is
  rather ugly, as mentioned before.
- it is entirely unnecessary for deployment, as shared object versioning
  perfectly supports co-installed major versions
- it is sort-of unnecessary for development, as -I & -L can be used to
  specify which libraries to build against

i'm considering renaming the pkg-config files, as they target
specifically linux and are the official entry point for the last item
above. it's far from decided, though.

> In short: We find that there is no _need_ to rename the tools and that
> we can solve the problem of co-installation using versioned
> directories.
i find andre's "implementation" more precise. your "proposal" is
basically a summary of the status quo amongst linux distros.


More information about the Development mailing list