Re: cyg/lib DLL naming

[Pečiva Jan <peciva at fit dot vutbr dot cz>]

>> > As AGO pointed out, searching for libfreetype.dll is non-portable,
>> > dangerous, and silly.
>>
>> Not me, who is doing that, but one large SW open-source library.
>> Therefore it is clear, that it have to link with other libraries in the
>> system that it is using.
>
> Right, but that doesn't make the current approach any less dangerous,
> non-portable, or silly. [...]

I see, we have different opinions in this point. But I am not interested in
discussion about them.

> A rejoinder question, though: if you're buidling a native Win32
> application, why not use the native build of freetype as well?

Good point. But the things behind are more complex and avoiding to use this, so
I will not write about them.

There is only one thing I have to mention and what agrees with your words:
In final release of my app, the freetype should be included, just to avoid
problems with other dlls.

John