Claudio Natoli wrote:
> I'm yet to see a convincing argument for why we can't adopt the
> "binary-location/../share" approach as submitted late March. AFAICS,
> it was rejected on the basis that it was not platform independent (no
> arguments there) and that we could not rely on the ".." approach.
The only objection was that it hardcodes the layout already in the
source, which gives us no flexibility at all to try out different
installation layouts. If you want to compute the relative paths from
bindir to libdir etc. at build time based on actual configure options,
then I see no problem with that.
