apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sander Striker" <stri...@apache.org>
Subject RE: library versioning name
Date Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:03:45 GMT
> From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:jerenkrantz@apache.org]
> Sent: 17 September 2002 10:47

> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.  -- justin

What can I say?  +1.

Sander

Mime
View raw message