Philip Brown <[email protected]> writes: > On 2/3/11, Peter FELECAN <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We need to have the library visible in both locations, to avoid >>> confusion to both users, and potential auto-detect scripts. Ones that >>> tend to have single flags like --use-libfoo=/prefix, rather than 3 >>> separate flags for --usr-libfoo-lib, --use-libfoo-include, >>> --use-libfoo-iforgettheotherthing >> >> I was quite opposed to this specific directories for different >> versions but lived with its inconveniences. Now that we have >> alternatives, it's really a PITA. >> >> Anyhow, what I wish is to not make it mandatory to separate different >> versions of the same project, which make sense to be installed >> simultaneously, in different directories but to be able to use >> alternatives and shared objects in /opt/csw/lib as a accepted solution. > > well, we may have different reasons for it, but seems like in that > case, we both agree on something: > > Forcing the "actual file", rather than a symlink, into /opt/csw/lib, > for *all* cases, is bad. Symlinks are more appropriate in some cases. > > Whether that symlink is done via "alternatives" or some other means, > is not an immediate issue to me. The immediate concern to me is that > the proposal as written, prohibits that sort of thing, and so needs to > be changed.
Indeed, we cannot have a strict, mandatory policy on this, rather a recommendation which is still a policy. Consequently, your proposition of modification cannot be as strong as you proposed, i.e., imposing the symbolic links instead of the real files. As for using alternatives for shared libraries, I don't know what to think. I thought that alternatives are more appropriate to executables but I must confess that thoroughly exploring alternatives is one of my objectives. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
