apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/test Makefile.in
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:11:05 GMT
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:41:09PM +0100, Thom May wrote:
> (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
> everyone.
> So, +1 to (both) Greg's proposals from here.

My concern is that this is attempting to enforce a versioning
scheme that isn't what everyone uses.  It's what you would use
if you use /usr and want to support multiple versions installed at
the same time.  Greg's commit locks everyone into this model, and the
more I think about it, I think that is harmful.

In my case, it's pointless as I already manage the versioning.  And,
I would much prefer if we left this up to the distribution to handle
rather than trying to impose our views.  If we allow this to be
managed by configure options, distros can customize it however they
want.

If APR supported config.layout (easy enough to add), a layout
could have:

<Layout parallel-apr>
    prefix:        /usr
    exec_prefix:   ${exec_prefix}
    bindir:        ${exec_prefix}/bin
    sbindir:       ${exec_prefix}/sbin
    libdir:        ${exec_prefix}/lib/apr-${major_version}
    includedir:    ${exec_prefix}/include/apr-${major_version}
    libsuffix:     -${major_version}
</Layout>

Add a substitution for major_version and add a libsuffix option.
And that allows distributions to implement this and people (or
distros) who don't want to, don't get needless clutter.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message