Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:54:39 -0700
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>, dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/test Makefile.in
Message-ID: <20020814125439.A14817@lyra.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>,
	dev@apr.apache.org
References: <20020814171515.57745.qmail@icarus.apache.org>
 <20020814104633.D14316@lyra.org> <20020814180050.GO6479@apache.org>
 <20020814184109.GA822@eustasy> <20020814191105.GA10466@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <20020814191105.GA10466@apache.org>;
 from jerenkrantz@apache.org on Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:11:05PM -0700

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:11:05PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> 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.

It is an improvement on our existing situation. In that sense, it is not
harmful. The previous situation was hella more harmful.

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

I would totally support adding such a notion, along with the
${major_version} example that you provided.

Note that I won't hold 0.9.0 for that, though. :-)  IMO, if the more
flexible installation appears in 0.9.1 ... we're still doing fine by our
users.

Do you suppose that the layout processing could be app-independent? For
example, APR provides the functionality, and APR, httpd, and SVN could all
use it?

[ I'm not trying to add work; if you do an APR-only solution, I'm still fine
  with that... just another add'l feature ]

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/