Re: comments on the gtkmm -vcXX- naming convention

["Philip Kovacs" <phil kovacs gmail com>]

>> I still don't get what the problem is with this. You decide what
>> you build your application with, and things will just work for the users
>> because the runtime package contains all the necessary files to run the
>> application, regardless whether you build against the MSVCRT80 or the
>> MSVCRT90 runtime.

Sure, but some people will build from source.   For them, I need to provide
a means of selecting the libraries to link against.  No, it's not a particularly
difficult technical issue, but it is an issue.

>> But if there are two applications, one built with MSVC 2005 and one with
>> MSVC 2008, then they should use different DLLs, right? If these DLLs
>> have the same name, then this cannot work (at least not if the DLLs are
>> meant to be shared).

It can work if you install to different directories and set your path as needed.
If, however, you require that multiple versions of the *mms coexist in the
same directory, then your approach is reasonable.   But now, the more I
think about it, the less I like path-based discrimination of libraries.

>> We used the same conventions as the boost C++ libraries, here:
>> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/more/getting_started/windows.html#library-naming

Very persuasive that you're following boost conventions. 

I think I'm convinced.

Phil