apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thom May <t...@planetarytramp.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/test Makefile.in
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:41:09 GMT
* Justin Erenkrantz (jerenkrantz@apache.org) wrote :
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:46:33AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > I just wanted to hilite this change, in case people missed it. Our output
> > library now looks like: libapr-0.so
> > 
> > (and when we release 1.x.y it will be libapr-1.so)
> > 
> > If you've got problems or concerns or whatever with the change, then now is
> > the time :-)
> > 
> > [ note: I also plan to shift the includes into INCLUDEDIR/apr-1/* ]
> My gut reaction is "Yuck" as I don't like this approach.
> To me, this is completely useless as I install each program in its
> own specific directory keyed off the entire version number, so apr
> would go to /pkg/apr-0.9.0/.  Therefore, this scheme is only meant
> for people who install to /usr, which, IMHO, is a not-so-good idea.
> For those people packaging APR, the configure script options should
> be powerful enough to let them tweak all of the directories without
> us forcing this scheme upon them.
> But, I'm curious what others think.  -- justin

(with debian and apr hacker hats on)
I think that Greg's proposal is a good thing; having the install scheme be
consistent across distributions - because we're doing it rather than
each distributor taking their own approach - is gonna make life easier for
So, +1 to (both) Greg's proposals from here.

Thom May -> thom@planetarytramp.net

> Personally, I quite like the little pictures they display when things are
> scanned.  Just so you know what a zucchini looks like before you go
> throwing your money away on one.
"Oh shit! Is that zucchini? It said OREOS on the shelf!"

View raw message