Anthony Carrico <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> One question that remains unanswered is what to do with shared
>> libraries. In your proposal, you don't put them in a platform-specific
>> directory, assuming that "lib" is not shared by different
>> architectures. I don't think this is a realistic assumption when
>> installing in stow directories, but I might miss something, it's
>> getting late. I'd be interested in knowing how people who install
>> software for several platforms and use the "stow" idea, organise this.
>> At work we have only one architecture, so I don't have experience with
> Unless you're anticipating that the installation procedure would
> compile for all the architectures in one pass, or something like that,
> then I guess we just need an option to specify (or to tell install to
> guess) the architecture specific version of "lib", but if anyone was
> going to use this option, then in reality they would probably also
> want an option to skip the installation of the shared parts (since it
> would only be necessary on the first platform).
We need the option to skip installation of the shared parts for the
current version of the proposal, too.
>> Ah, and something I'd also like to discuss is whether we should have
>> separate hierarchies for "s48" and "scsh" or not. But not right now.
> Thanks. Maybe today it only impacts on sunterlib.
I don't think taking care of S48 right now is worthwhile. It just
lacks too many required features such as command line options for
loading exec scripts, or a library path. The fact that scsh is
currently not based on the most recent version of S48 compilcates this