"Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 01:22:17AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote: >> Are you just bitching, or do you have a better design? Let's hear it. > > Oh, I'm fine with --enable-layout=classic which reverts Havoc's > model to what we had before. The key point for me is to allow > the admin not to be forced into a particular model.
Thank you Justin... > We can both co-exist in our little worlds - which is acceptable > to me (and I hope to you). You have your reasons for using that > model, I have my reasons for thinking it's overboard - which is > that a prefix containing an explicit version resolves the parallel > concerns (i.e. /opt/apr-0.9.0 or /opt/apr-0.9 or /opt/apr-0). If > you don't have a versioned prefix, yes, you need Havoc's model. That's why the idea of MacOS/X's bundles and frameworks makes _a_lot_ of sense! :) That's just a beautiful way of organizing things... > It does make sense to make your design the default, since that lets > newbies configure it in a sensible (to them) manner. But, we should > have the flexibility to allow for circumstances where it isn't > helpful. The thing that doesn't make me smile about having version details in the library name is that it doesn't push developers to update their code to the latest versions of a given library... If I'm sure I can simply do a -lapr-0.9, why in the world would I be pushed to update to -lapr-1.0? But anyhow, since we have a "classic" layout, I can live with that! :) Pier