After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 624777 - SigC++ library file name prevents linking in some cases
SigC++ library file name prevents linking in some cases
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: libsigc++
Classification: Bindings
Component: build
2.2.x
Other All
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: Martin Schulze
Martin Schulze
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-07-19 23:09 UTC by Peter C.
Modified: 2010-09-28 02:30 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Peter C. 2010-07-19 23:09:24 UTC 
The way SigC++ is currently named as a file name (SigC-2.x) causes issues with some linking methods due to the .x being detected as a file extension instead of as a part of the file name. I would like to request a fix of changing the filename from SigC-2.x to SigC-2_x instead. This will prevent linker errors in some instances, such as creating platform independent FindSigCpp.cmake Cmake modules.
Comment 1 David King 2010-08-13 13:15:55 UTC 
(In reply to comment #0)
> The way SigC++ is currently named as a file name (SigC-2.x) causes issues with
> some linking methods due to the .x being detected as a file extension instead
> of as a part of the file name.

Which issues and linking methods are you referring to? The naming convention of including a version number (specifically the x.y scheme) in the library name is quite common (libgtk-x11-2.0, libglib-2.0 and over 50 other libraries on my system) among pkg-config-using libraries.

I had a look at the CMake bug that you filed:

http://www.vtk.org/Bug/view.php?id=11011

Please follow up that bug and respond here if there is still a problem.
Comment 2 Felipe Besoaín Pino 2010-09-28 02:30:45 UTC 
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for.
Thanks!