On Wednesday 13 April 2011 14:02:53 Daniel Fetchinson wrote: > > librep installs library files to: > > /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > > > > rep-gtk installs to: > > /usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > > > > sawfish installs to: > > /usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > > > > Is there a reason for having version number 0.91.1 in librep path? > > Yes, because you might later install a newer version and want to keep > the old version around (for testing things for example). Well...if you have /usr/bin/rep version 0.91.1 and /usr/lib/rep/0.91.0 /usr/lib/rep/0.91.1 the former libdir is useless as you'll so or so have to re-install librep 0.91.0 in order for the correct interpreter. >From that point of view I agree with Kim for librep and rep-gtk. Primarly you would be right for Sawfish, but as it links to a specific version of librep (which might not be abi-compatible) it's also a good idea to remove the version from Sawfish. And see transistion of animator modules or edge-flip <> edge-actions -- the old modules remain and may cause problems with the new ones, if loaded from user's resource file (imagine old edge-flip loaded, while edge-actions is, too). > > How about dropping x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu too? > > Sounds like a good idea. Defnitively. I'll do that for 0.91.1/1.8.1 Chris > > > All of those could be called /usr/lib64/rep. > > The version number shouldn't be dropped, I think. > > Cheers, > Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.