I think like Ted Bullok, that the CoApp directory is ok, because CoApp is the publisher and identified in the directory structure by itself.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Ted Bullock Gesendet: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:03 PM An: Garrett Serack Cc: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [Coapp-developers] Common library paths 2010/4/15 Garrett Serack <[email protected]> > Hmm. This leads to wondering if we really need common files in the middle. Ive never seen bin/lib/doc/include in program files > > Comments? A couple things. I think the CoApp directory is ok since it creates an actual location for all things coapp. Common files is ok because we want it to be shared.... I wonder about calling it bin, lib, doc.... why not something non-unixy and more english like executables, libraries, documentation. Also there is another thing; I think the include directory should be versioned for each shared dependency. There are situations where developers do not want to link to the latest version and it shouldn't be overwritten by updating the package. Most of the time this won't be the case, but it is not a lot of extra work to support the alternative. That is to say: %CoApp_Dir%\include\zlib\ <- Junction to zlib-1.2.3 %CoApp_Dir%\include\zlib-1.2.3\zlib.h %CoApp_Dir%\include\zlib-1.2.2\zlib.h -- Ted Bullock <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
