First is philosophical. Using "sitearch" seems more apppriate than "RUBY_SO_NAME" - that is the point of sitearch isn't it?
Second is practical. I continue to hope that I'll be able to convince ruby core that the shared library name on windows should be ruby19.dll (I'll be sending another email soon :). Therefore RUBY_SO_NAME will no longer work for this.
At Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:54:54 +0900,
Charlie Savage wrote in [ruby-core:22997]:
First is philosophical. Using "sitearch" seems more apppriate
than "RUBY_SO_NAME" - that is the point of sitearch isn't it?
RUBY_SO_NAME is too.
Second is practical. I continue to hope that I'll be able to
convince ruby core that the shared library name on windows
should be ruby19.dll (I'll be sending another email soon :).
Therefore RUBY_SO_NAME will no longer work for this.
I had explained why it can't. Do you have any suggestion for
workaround?