Re: More about packaging (hopefully not too long)

[Mike Pall <mikelu-0406@...>]

Hi,

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.

Bye,
     Mike