On 01/11/2011 12:31 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
To clarify, I looked up the proposed naming scheme and it's
'libname-hash-version.so' where the hash is a hash of the exported
metadata (type hashes don't come into play here).
Yes, this is the way the compiler *should* be producing libraries by
default. Even with the recent changes to "emitting proper library names"
(eg. bug #744) I don't think we're quite doing it right yet. Better though!
And I *think* it was probably safe to keep "std" as "std", not
"ruststd", since there's unlikely to be a collision with any normal
C-ABI stuff on libstd-<hash>-0.1.so
(or, I suppose, libstd-<hash>.so.0.1 on linux, as is their style)
The idea here is that <libname> gives us a fast name-based scanning set
of libraries to inspect while resolving a "use" directive, <hash> gives
us the ability to dodge all (or all likely) name collisions in the
field, and <version> hooks us into whatever OS package-versioning
primitives and conventions exist.
-Graydon
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
