apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pier Fumagalli <p...@betaversion.org>
Subject Re: library versioning name
Date Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:22:38 GMT
"Justin Erenkrantz" <jerenkrantz@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 01:22:17AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Are you just bitching, or do you have a better design? Let's hear it.
> Oh, I'm fine with --enable-layout=classic which reverts Havoc's
> model to what we had before.  The key point for me is to allow
> the admin not to be forced into a particular model.

Thank you Justin...

> We can both co-exist in our little worlds - which is acceptable
> to me (and I hope to you).  You have your reasons for using that
> model, I have my reasons for thinking it's overboard - which is
> that a prefix containing an explicit version resolves the parallel
> concerns (i.e. /opt/apr-0.9.0 or /opt/apr-0.9 or /opt/apr-0).  If
> you don't have a versioned prefix, yes, you need Havoc's model.

That's why the idea of MacOS/X's bundles and frameworks makes _a_lot_ of
sense! :) That's just a beautiful way of organizing things...

> It does make sense to make your design the default, since that lets
> newbies configure it in a sensible (to them) manner.  But, we should
> have the flexibility to allow for circumstances where it isn't
> helpful.

The thing that doesn't make me smile about having version details in the
library name is that it doesn't push developers to update their code to the
latest versions of a given library... If I'm sure I can simply do a
-lapr-0.9, why in the world would I be pushed to update to -lapr-1.0?

But anyhow, since we have a "classic" layout, I can live with that! :)


View raw message