Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:19:15 -0400
To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com
Cc: gvv@techie.com
Subject: Re: DLL naming conventions
Message-ID: <20000902221915.B13854@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com, gvv@techie.com
References: <200009011148.OAA23769@urkki.tellabs.fi> <39AFB333.69CE5F95@ece.gatech.edu> <20000902140958.F7695@demon.co.uk> <39B14893.A86AF3F9@ece.gatech.edu> <20000902231925.Q7695@demon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <20000902231925.Q7695@demon.co.uk>; from gvv@techie.com on Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:19:25PM +0100

On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:19:25PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> Since windows-dll
>> loading is based on the executable path, and not 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH' or
>> similar, you've got a problem.
>
>Most definitely.

It is *not* strictly based on the executable path.  It first searches
the current directory, then searches the directory containing the executable.
Most Windows packages rely on this and place the DLL with the executable.
That should solve the problem of finding the "wrong" dll.

I'm still kind of amazed by all of the furor this discussion is generating,
given that I don't think we have yet seen a single problem reported.

If this was a big deal I would have thought that there would be many many
plaintive wails in this mailing list.

If the solution to the problem is as simple as placing the DLL with the
executable then why the heck don't we just do that?  I love being as
close to UNIX as possible but if it is going to cause problems then
it makes sense not to do things that way.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com