> > > > OK about including the compiler version in the package filename. > Not for me... The compiler is not that big and you can always choose > to ignore it.
I mean I was OK about including "24i" in the package name. About win/linux versions, I also prefer let them all in the same package. > > To do what you say, I use > > symlinks: "jallib" pointing to the one I want. > Eh... you understand it is difficult for me to admit but this is an > important feature that is lacking in windows... ... > > If you also want to get rid > > of the version, you can simply rename it, can't you ? No base directory > > is... well... this is how zip are usually made, and I really, really > don't > > like that, because when you unzip, it can polute all your current > directory. > It's not about us, it's about most users. They just want to stay up to > date with the most recent version. Not keep all previous versions. And > not change the path settings or having to check if they actually use > the newest version installed. OK, then can we agree on this: * for zip, there's no base directory, and no version. zip's content is directly "lib", "sample", "compiler", license files... (this is what I usually see with zip files). Users are free to unzip in the directory they want * for tarballs, this base directory is named "jallib-<version>" (this is quite standard, and tarballs users are also happy symlink users). Seb -- Sébastien Lelong http://www.sirloon.net http://sirbot.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
