[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: More about packaging (hopefully not too long)
- From: Mike Pall <mikelu-0406@...>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:19:52 +0200
Jamie Webb wrote:
> Mike Pall suggested that the stub could be a symlink. I don't think a symlink
> to the library is feasible, but a symlink to a generic stub which loads the
> library of the same name seems entirely reasonable (for Unix at least).
Yes, I meant a symlink to a stub. But note that I appended a smilie,
because I don't think a symlink is inherently better/faster/more convenient
than a one-liner stub. In fact you'll get into trouble if a later version
carelessly overwrites it with a real file. Making this the default behaviour
would be dangerous.
Or to re-iterate what my previous post said: this should be site-customizable
behaviour, enabled by a standard installer. And this point needs to be
discussed after the key issues are solved.