On Tue, Jan 27, 2015, at 06:34 AM, ph10@??? wrote: > > Should there be just an unversioned 'libpcre2.pc' and
> > /usr/local/lib64/libpcre2.so as well?
>
> I've (at last) got round to looking at this properly. This was
> deliberately done like this so that the -8, -16, and -32 libraries were
> all similar in their naming conventions.
>
> > I'd suspect upstreams may attempt to default to libpcre2.{pc,so}, as
> > for libpcre.
> >
> > Or, are there specific reasons NOT to?
>
> Hmm. You may be right, but I think, at least until we get some more
> complaints, I'd rather leave it as it is. I realize that on many systems
> only one library will be installed, and people might like to have it
> called libpcre2, but I'd rather keep the names clear.
That's certainly fair. Thanks.
I'll wager that it crops up in hardcoded checks for libpcre2 libs in various apps. Prudent rpath linking, or proper use of pkg-config, can deal with the issue -- but both are too often done sloppily.
