From dev-return-7720-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Wed Aug 14 18:46:46 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 18691 invoked by uid 500); 14 Aug 2002 18:46:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 18679 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2002 18:46:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 19:41:09 +0100 From: Thom May To: Justin Erenkrantz , dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/test Makefile.in Message-ID: <20020814184109.GA822@eustasy> Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz , dev@apr.apache.org References: <20020814171515.57745.qmail@icarus.apache.org> <20020814104633.D14316@lyra.org> <20020814180050.GO6479@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020814180050.GO6479@apache.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: Linux/2.4.19-ac4 (i686) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N * 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 everyone. So, +1 to (both) Greg's proposals from here. -Thom -- 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!"