User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
Sean Ahern wrote:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>
> Of course. But that's pretty nonstandard. Plus, you have to worry about
> shifting version numbers. Do you mean /usr/lib/libnetsnmpmibs.5.0.8.dylib?
> Or maybe you want /sw/lib/libORBit.0.5.17.dylib. Or does this one have a
> /sw/lib/libORBit.0.dylib symlink? It's a lot more standard to let the
> linker resolve this kind of thing at link time. And definitely more
> cross-platform compatible.
I don't understand your version number point. As long as the symlinks are in
place you don't have to worry about version numbers at all. If the symlinks
are not in place then the linker will be unable to find the library either.
The linker, when it sees -lfoo, looks for libfoo.dylib in all the -L paths
on the link line, in order, then in /lib /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib, then
it starts again looking for libfoo.a. Of course, with 10.3, you can specify
-search_paths_first which will cause ld to look for libfoo.dylib then
libfoo.a in each path before continuing to the next path.
In other words, ld has no idea about version numbers, why bring them up here?
