• Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> Feb 26 2006
• BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> Feb 26 2006

Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:

Can we please rename libphobos.a to libphobos-0.148.a and so on????

Is it really that much of a pain to include the version constant in the 
library name????

As I see it, the only place where a change is needed, is the linker 
command line. (Anybody correct me if i'm wrong. And even if I am, is it 
still that difficult?)

BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <4401E7BB.3030103 nospam.org>, Georg Wrede says...
Can we please rename libphobos.a to libphobos-0.148.a and so on????

Is it really that much of a pain to include the version constant in the 
library name????

As I see it, the only place where a change is needed, is the linker 
command line. (Anybody correct me if i'm wrong. And even if I am, is it 
still that difficult?)


This might get sticky if you use gcc to link your code (like in a makefile). I'm
not to clear on how gcc finds libs but having the libs change names could be a
bad thing.

OTOH if an install script is used hard/soft links could be used to alias
libphobos_0.xxx.a as libphobos.a, then you only need to deal with that problem
when using old versions.