[csw-maintainers] Shared library placement proposal

[Philip Brown]

2011/2/8 Maciej Bliziński <maciej at opencsw.org>:
> 2011/2/8 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
>>
>> 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.