Re: libtool "no symlinked libs" patch

[Brad <brad_(_at_)_comstyle_(_dot_)_com>]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:10:33PM -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:12:36PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:01:11PM -0800, Marc Matteo wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Nov 17, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Could you point me to discussion about this decision (so I don't write
> > > >about stuff already beaten to death here)?
> > > 
> > > In OpenBSD (at least) the library name that matters is the stuff  
> > > between the "lib" and the ".so" so libfoo.so.4.0 and libfoo-1.8.so. 
> > > 4.0 are two distinctly different libraries.  Symlinking them is stupid.
> > > 
> > > So whatever the library name is supposed to be, either -lfoo or - 
> > > lfoo-1.8 is up to the software author, most here roll their eyes at  
> > > versioned libnames, but we accept them... just don't symlink them.
> > > 
> > > Marc
> >  
> > Exactly, which means not removing the ability to create shared libs with the
> > -release tag. This is a very bad idea. Just remove the symlinking.
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> 
> for example, we'd get _only_ libldap-2.3.so.8.1.  then we'd have to
> change every port with -lldap to -lldap-2.3.
> 
> -- 
> <jakemsr_(_at_)_jakemsr_(_dot_)_com>

Ports should already do the right thing with pkgconfig and the other mechanisms.
If not then they need to be fixed. Removing -release support from libtool is not
happening.