From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 18:48:41 -0500 Subject: [Buildroot] Naming of libraries. In-Reply-To: <20061103081507.GA9631@zelow.no> References: <20061103081507.GA9631@zelow.no> Message-ID: <200611041848.41847.rob@landley.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Friday 03 November 2006 3:15 am, Thomas Lundquist wrote: > > I am making packages for qwt and gd and I ended up with pondering about > what to call the package. > > It does look like all libraries are prefixed with "lib" but most of them > have lib prefixed in their name anyway. > > Couldn't find anything in the docs either. > > So, should all libraries be prefixed with "lib"? When you tell gcc "gcc -lcurses" it looks for libcurses in the library search path. Because gcc looks for things starting with "lib", people add that to their library names to use gcc. (Everybody agrees ".exe" is stupid for executables, and libraries already have .a or .so anyway, but this is the FSF we're talking about. Making sense was never a strong suit with them.) (And yes, I honestly think they believe "-liberty" as a command line option is funny or something, hence libiberty.a) Rob -- "Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery