On Monday 05 November 2007, you wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >Ok. So this means if every plugin would have the "lib" prefix we could
> > link to every plugin (maybe on all platforms).
>
> No.
>
> You can dlopen any library. You can't link to plugins, lib prefix or not.
> (Unless you do the test and verify that it works -- I didn't)

At least on Linux (and I guess Solaris and the BSDs too) there's no difference 
AFAIK, that's why the "maybe" ;-)

> >If the plugin doesn't have the "lib" prefix, we can't link to it (at
> > least on some platforms).
>
> Even if the library doesn't have the lib prefix, we can link to it. But it
> requires the full path to it to be passed on the linker command-line.

Yes, and cmake doesn't do that.

> >So we have three options:
> >1) leave it as it is and keep the "WITH_PREFIX" option, so some plugins
> > have the "lib" prefix and others don't
> >
> >2) remove the WITH_PREFIX option and always use the "lib" prefix ->
> > should bring no problems, may look at bit ugly, probably also doesn't
> > bring any advantages
> >
> >3) remove the WITH_PREFIX option, never use the "lib" prefix -> slightly
> > nicer code, linking to a plugin not possible (since -lkfoo won't find
> > kfoo.so)
> >
> >If it's no problem for us that we cannot link to a plugin I'd vote for
> > 3)
>
> And I agree. We shouldn't be linking to plugins.

So, does anybody else still have objections against removing "WITH_PREFIX" ?

Alex