No dia 2 de Janeiro de 2011 14:36, Ben Walton <[email protected]> escreveu: > Excerpts from Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski's message of Sat Jan 01 20:18:27 > -0500 2011: > >> No, it didn't. If I wanted to suggest anything about binaries, I >> would write "binaries would be kept under..." and I'd specify the >> location. > > Ok, then I rescind my +1 if only the libraries are to be moved. I > also though you meant doing away with the whole mysql{4,5} prefixes > and using alternatives with some form of binary suffix setup. > > What I'd like to see in the multiple mysql arena is: > > 1. Use the normal --prefix=/opt/csw at configure time. > 2. Use a version based suffix on binaries (4, 5, 51). (Hopefully this > is supported by the autoconf for the packages.) > 3. Have mysql4 provide alternatives at priority 1, 5 -> 2, 5.1 -> 3, > etc.
I agree that it's a good idea and I would like the mysql packages to be packaged that way. In this proposal, I would like to decouple the packaging from shared libraries from the rest of mysql packages. I would like the mysql shared library packages to stop being special and different from all other shared library packages. > If we're only moving the libraries, I don't see much point. It's > doable, as you say, but what real value does it provide if we still > drag around the rest of the version specific directory structure? It's the divide and conquer idea - it's easier to tackle one problem at a time. I would like to deal with shared libraries first, and when this bit is done, continue with --prefix=/opt/csw. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
