Hi Bjoern, On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 07:36:27PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Sun, 22 May 2011 18:45:53 +0200 > Francois Tigeot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What I would like to know is if there's still a reason to use this > > suffix in 2011. > Unfortunately, yes: compatibility for C++ extensions -- at least for > the lower level libs that provide most of the UNO infrastructure.
Where can I find more about this ? I've found some openoffice.org web pages about extensions but nothing really useful about UNO and the C++ extension ABI. > > It would tremendously simplify packaging to use the same file names > > on all platforms. > Thats why it is already on > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/LibreOffice4, and why I You're sure ? I do not see anything explicit about file names / platform suffixes. > tried to make it easy to switch of the "creative" naming in the new > build system at once. Which leads us to the next point: Doing the > switch while we still have two build systems is not a good idea. Ok. Three of the *BSD systems (OpenBSD, DragonFly, NetBSD) have already had their DLL suffixes unified in a single one per OS. Could it negatively impact something barring possible C++ binary extensions ? -- Francois Tigeot _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
