2011/2/8 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: > 2011/2/8 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: >> >> yes. I've already written this, AND I've already written why. >> Because that is the "normal" way that programs install things, when >> you compile with >> configure --prefix=/opt/csw/prefix >> >> That is the "normal" location , > > No, it isn't.
let me clarify: "normal, for that software's installation process" >> Plus the issue about keeping "du -k" output consistent within the >> program files for a prefix. > > This issue is considered irrelevant. You misspelled "Maciej considers this issue irrelevant". That does not make the issue universally irrelevant I consider your goal of having the physical rather than the symlink, in /opt/csw/lib, to be irrelevant to any kind of quality improvement. Why is your opinion more important than mine? >> Perhaps we should not include anything about files vs symlinks in the >> proposal. This can be covered by a separate proposal. If you care >> about this, would you like to put forward a proposal regarding the use >> of symlinks? > >Phil, could you address this paragraph? I thought I already said that was okay. The trouble is, you keep using language in the proposal that mandates having the physical file in /opt/csw/lib, and denies using symlinks. As far as I can think of, there is no clean simple grammatical construct you can use, that covers "move the file, or make a symlink". Using the word "move" in the spec, denies the use of sylinks. The whole point of symlinking, is to NOT move, but make a reference instead. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
