Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch> writes:
> Le 9 mars 04, à 00:09, Daniel Kobras a écrit :
> So I propose we do as you suggest, and distribute the installation
> library as a separate package first, and when it stabilises, bundle it
> with scsh (provided the main scsh authors agree, of course).
That's fine with me.
>> Finally, some of the directories smell like their content might depend
>> on a specific version of scsh. For instance, if libraries in
>> /usr/lib/scsh compiled with scsh 0.6.x are unlikely to work with scsh
>> 0.7.x, it will cause headaches when upgrading from 0.6 to the 0.7
>> series. If this is the case, please think about using /usr/lib/scsh-0.6
>> instead, similar to what perl and python do. Ideally scsh-0.6 and
>> scsh-0.7 versions of the same package can be installed in parallel.
> Right. I'm just wondering how far we should go in that direction. The
> most extreme (and probably the safest) option would be to say that
> *all* files are put in a version-dependent directory, including Scheme
> With such a solution, the "scsh" layout would have scsh's version
> number as a prefix for all directories, as follows (where <version>
> represent the first two digits of scsh's version, i.e. 0.6 for the
> current incarnation [I've seen they are accessible under the names
> scsh-major-version and scsh-minor-version in scsh-version, in fact]):
> base -> <version>/<package_full_name>
> active -> <version>
> scheme -> <version>/<package_full_name>/scheme
> lib -> <version>/<package_full_name>/lib
> doc -> <version>/<package_full_name>/doc
> misc-shared -> <version>/<package_full_name>
This solution implies the library path to be set to
> while the "fhs" layout would be modified so that directories which are
> currently named "scsh" only include a version number. We would get the
> following mapping then:
> base -> share/scsh-<version>/modules/<package_full_name>
> active -> share/scsh-<version>/modules
> scheme -> share/scsh-<version>/modules/<package_full_name>/scheme
> lib -> lib/scsh-<version>/modules/<package_full_name>
> doc -> share/doc/scsh-<version>/<package_full_name>
> misc-shared -> share/scsh-<version>/modules/<package_full_name>
> I like that solution personally, if nobody complains I'll modify the
> layouts accordingly.
Yes, this sounds good.