Bob Rossi wrote:
>> As planned, I used those added commands to get a pcre.dll like the old
>> one (plus coff).
>>
>
> Hi Sheri,
>
> I just made a small patch to pcre that provides the dll without the
> version number. It however, does not change the contents of the dll.
> That is, the pcre.dll still doesn't contain the pcreposix functions.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to give this functionality on windows and
> not on unix. So, should we provide a mode that combines the pcre and
> pcreposix stuff into one dll or so, named pcre.dll or pcre.so?
>
> The other option Philip, is to just say, from now on, the pcre.dll won't
> contain the pcreposix functions.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
>
>
>
Hi Bob,
I would of course be very happy to have an option that would include
posix and make pcre.dll automatically. Just giving libpcre-0.dll the
name of pcre.dll without making it interchangeable with older versions
of pcre.dll (which included posix) might be confusing, but if it also
makes pcreposix.dll (and pcreposix.dll looks for pcre.dll) that would
work (at least for us). Our app is now able to function with
libpcre-0.dll and libpcreposix-0.dll, but if we distributed those files,
users would have to manually remove the old pcre.dll and/or
pcreposix.dll for the new versions to get used.
Our order for file searching is shown here:
http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/pcre-dev/2007-April/msg00055.html
Also, I continue to marvel that our combined pcre.dll (incl posix and
pcre and coff) is smaller than your libpcre-0.dll (pcre only)
Regards,
Sheri
