<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - replace tools/solar.h macros with osl versions" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63154#c54">Comment # 54</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_ASSIGNED " title="ASSIGNED --- - replace tools/solar.h macros with osl versions" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63154">bug 63154</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:sbergman@redhat.com" title="Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>"> Stephan Bergmann</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=63154#c6">comment #6</a>) > not sure who had the crazy idea of hard-coding "lo" into dozens of library > loading calls... but clearly that silly "lo" suffix serves no useful purpose > and we should just get rid of it in the build system, in which case > SVLIBRARY can be trivially replaced with SAL_MODULENAME. See <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED FIXED - Libreoffice 4.1 tries to load URE's store.dll from Windows directory" href="show_bug.cgi?id=67313">bug 67313</a> for a rationale why the "lo" suffix is useful after all. (In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=63154#c53">comment #53</a>) > Any idea of where to put SVLIBRARY, or it can't be touched yet? In light of the above, I would still stick to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=63154#c3">comment 3</a>.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>