On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 11:47:31AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de writes:
Maybe we should use libwinecore_XXX.so and libwinedll_XXX.so for the naming scheme. That'd be pretty reasonable and cleaner/better than the current approach IMHO, as it'd clearly separate core/dll functionality in a good way.
The separation will be done by putting dlls in a separate directory (usually /usr/lib/wine) which is a lot cleaner than creating 150 files in /usr/lib, no matter how they are named.
Presumably there is no reason not to give these files a different suffix as well? Then there will be even less confusion :-)
I presume that if an ELF file has a 'needed' entry of "wine/xyz.abc" the dynamic linker will correctly locate the dependant library. But for most of wine, they are not ELF and wine does all the loading anyway.
David