Author: Sheri Date: To: Sheri, pcre-dev Subject: Re: [pcre-dev] Current state of cmake support
Bob Rossi wrote: >>
>> Would it make sense and also be possible to add similar options for
>> "suffix"?
>>
>> If I use configure & make (in Msys/mingw), electing shared libraries I
>> get pcre-0.dll, pcreposix-0.dll and pcrecpp-0.dll. But electing static
>> libraries, I get pcre.a, pcreposix.a and pcrecpp.a. Possibly someone
>> making the switch to cmake might like to maintain filename suffix
>> compatibility. I don't know if this is only applicable in mingw or not.
>> Philip, are name suffixes consistent between Configure and make vs cmake
>> built shared and static libraries on Linux?
>>
>
> We can remove the -0 from the shared libraries if you would like with
> the autotools build system. So instead of
> pcre-0.dll, we could have pcre.dll.
>
> Does this matter to you? I thought perhaps the versioning could be
> helpful, but, I'm not sure.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
>
>
>
Welcome back Bob. Sorry for creating confusion here, I mispoke.
Autotools is producing libpcre-0.dll, etc. (shared) and libpcre.a, etc.
(static). I also mispoke in another earlier note. The support for
alternate library names previously added to our particular app was for
libpcre-0.dll, etc. names (not libpcre.dll). So no, I don't think it
should be changed at this stage of the game. I just think the (mingw)
library naming options in cmake should be flexible enough for the
variety of backward compatibility situations users might encounter.
