On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:10:33PM -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:12:36PM -0500, Brad wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:01:11PM -0800, Marc Matteo wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 17, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > > > >Could you point me to discussion about this decision (so I don't write > > > >about stuff already beaten to death here)? > > > > > > In OpenBSD (at least) the library name that matters is the stuff > > > between the "lib" and the ".so" so libfoo.so.4.0 and libfoo-1.8.so. > > > 4.0 are two distinctly different libraries. Symlinking them is stupid. > > > > > > So whatever the library name is supposed to be, either -lfoo or - > > > lfoo-1.8 is up to the software author, most here roll their eyes at > > > versioned libnames, but we accept them... just don't symlink them. > > > > > > Marc > > > > Exactly, which means not removing the ability to create shared libs with the > > -release tag. This is a very bad idea. Just remove the symlinking. > > I strongly disagree. > > for example, we'd get _only_ libldap-2.3.so.8.1. then we'd have to > change every port with -lldap to -lldap-2.3. > > -- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ports should already do the right thing with pkgconfig and the other mechanisms. If not then they need to be fixed. Removing -release support from libtool is not happening.
