Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sat Jan 08 11:38:06 -0500 2011: > Maciej, it sounds like you are mixing goal objective, with > implementation. Isnt your real goal, "to have standardized linking, > -R/opt/csw/lib whereever possible"?
I think this is Maciej's goal, but for something (like mysql) that already lives in a separate prefix and requires -I/opt/csw/$foo/include, etc how much value is one less -R? To this end, I think that as long as the bulk of the package is delivered to a special prefix, the real libraries should live there too. A symlink from /opt/csw/lib as a convenience doesn't hurt, but I don't see much benefit to doing that either. > In all these kinds of situations, to help our users have an "easy to > use" experience, we need to make sure our deliverables make sense on > purely a filesystem basis. I disagree with this. Our job is providing packages. Our job is _not_ to make things easier to replicate with tools other than the packaging system. I think we need to focus on what the packages provide and how they behave in the rest of the package ecosystem, not on what people may choose to do at $random_site_x. While placing all of the 'special prefix' files under the special prefix does make things like this easier, it shouldn't be either the point or even a guiding principle. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
