Re: Will the real libiconv please stand up! Was : Re: [Mingw-users] baby steps, an half-finshed packaging of libiconv (very boring)

Bruno Haible writes:
 > I decided for the DLL name generated by Makefile.msvc - knowing that
 > in the Woe32 world, the prefix "lib" is uncommon.

 > The mingw32 porters of libtool decided to keep the "lib" prefix - for
 > reasons I can only speculate about (maybe the desire to minimize the
 > changes in Makefiles or in libtool?).

This is a bit unfortunate, as there now are functionally identical
DLLs floating around under these two names. (A libiconv DLL compiled
with either gcc or MSVC is to the best of my knowledge perfectly
useable from both gcc- and MSVC-compiled code.)

IMHO it would be best to standardize on using either one of these
names. I have a slight bias in favour of "iconv.dll" as that is what
the GLib DLL has been linked to until now. But I understand that for
others the situation might be vice versa...

(The gettext.sourceforge.net people really shouldn't be unnecessarily
distributing their own build of the libiconv DLL, but instead use the
officially sanctioned mingwrep one.)

--tml