On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 09:25:41AM +0200, Robert Palm wrote:
>
> Quoting Thomas Frohwein <tfrohw...@fastmail.com>:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:48:31PM +0200, Robert Palm wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I would like to know why, the following libs are named
> > >
> > > libSDL2_image.so.1.1
> > > libSDL2_ttf.so.0.1
> > >
> > > and not
> > >
> > > libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0
> > > libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0
> > >
> > > Ports:
> > > devel/sdl2-image
> > > devel/sdl2_ttf
> > >
> > > Is it because of CMAKE_SHARED_LIBRARY_SUFFIX ? How does it work?
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> >
> > As to the why in the sense of the reason for the decision - this
> > decision was made before my time. My understanding is that upstream
> > decision to append '-2.0' didn't serve a useful purpose (SDL2 in the
> > library name really tells you everything and at this point it looks
> > like the next version will be SDL3).
> >
> > Also note the comment in CMakeLists.txt:
> >
> > # For historical reasons, the library name redundantly includes the major
> > # version twice: libSDL2-2.0.so.0.
> >
> > As to the technical why - the port uses configure/Makefile and the patch
> > for Makefile.in removes the use of LT_RELEASE which is responsible for
> > the '-2.0' in other platforms.
> >
> > This is for devel/sdl2, probably similar for the sdl2-* ports. At this
> > point this is moot as upstream has already acknowledged that this
> > library naming will be stopped with SDL3.
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> understand - thanks a lot for your detailed explanations!
>
> I'll simply use symlinks so that the sdl2 libs can be found...typically,
> they are refered to by the 2 "standard" designators like
>
> ("libSDL2_ttf-2.0.so.0" "libSDL2_ttf")
> ("libSDL2_image-2.0.so.0" "libSDL2_image")
don't use links, the major number may change
and dlopen'ing libname.so and libname.so.major work without them
