Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > I'm yet to see a convincing argument for why we can't adopt the
> > "binary-location/../share" approach as submitted late March. AFAICS,
> > it was rejected on the basis that it was not platform independent (no
> > arguments there) and that we could not rely on the ".." approach.
>
> The only objection was that it hardcodes the layout already in the
> source, which gives us no flexibility at all to try out different
> installation layouts. If you want to compute the relative paths from
> bindir to libdir etc. at build time based on actual configure
> options, then I see no problem with that.
But we want to resolve the locations at run-time, not build or configure
time. For win32, I'm yet to see why this approach is egregious.
Do you have an alternative solution to propose?
Cheers,
Claudio
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>