On Aug 20 13:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 20 12:39, Vaclav Haisman wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Charles Wilson wrote: > > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >>I just had a look into the boost packages and from my point of view they > > >>are not GTG, for various reasons. > > >>- The Cygwin naming convention of DLLs is not used: > > Boost obviously doesn't generate cyg- prefixed names, that would have to be > > fixed. But I can see precedence for not doing so in my /bin too. There are > > libpython2.4.dll, libW11.dll and libzsh-4.2.4.dll. > > I don't think that the few exceptions from the rule should be used > as excuse. Rather they should also change their name in later versions. > > > >>- The naming convention for static and dynamic link libs is not used: > > The naming convention is different because Boost generates or can generate > > many combinations of libs. Static/dynamic, multi threaded/single threaded, > > debug/release, with or witout debug info. I do not think it would be a good > > idea to try to force different naming convention just for Cygwin. > > Sorry, but that's not what I mean. Regardless of the internal specification, > the link libs should use the naming convention for static and dynamic libs, > as it is automagically created by libtool. I don't know about the internals > of boost, so I assumed that the -s.a vs. .a was supposed to mean static vs. > dynamic. If it means something else, then the naming convention is still to > use .a and .dll.a as in: > > libboost-foo-bar.a > libboost-foo-bar-s.a > libboost-foo-bar.dll.a > libboost-foo-bar-s.dll.a
Oh, sorry, I just reread your mail. I missed that boost didn't build the import libs at all. I missunderstood this one. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:[email protected] Red Hat, Inc.
