On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:06 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> >> I'm not saying we shouldn't make it easy to provide and alternative >> path for apxs it being a little config mod or be it a parameter. > > Neither was I :) As Guenter pointed out, distros were "forced" to rename > apxs to apxs2 because we failed to do so. But what about the distinction > between apxs2 and apxs22? Or some apxs24 or apxs3 in the future? > > We should help people in this, but without distributors coming back and > hollering "whoa! problem!" how do they expect to provide us with some > standardized solution? So they each invent their own, and then gripe > when accommodating each of their their forks is rejected by the project? > > Guenter - your first challenge on httpd trunk is to convince the project > that /usr/bin/apxs for 2.4/3.0 would be a stupid mistake to repeat, so > that we change our ways :) If your proposal involves naming it apxs2 or > apxs3, then you might kill two birds in one stone. >
Personally I'd go for renaming (backwards aswel to apxs13 apxs20 apxs22 apxs30 ... and having apxs being a symlink of sorts like "apxs -s 22" will set 22 as the default but also providing na one time overwrite something like apxs -v 22 will use it only for this runtime instance. Not ideal but it does provide a long term solution but probably not ideal.
