Claudio Natoli wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But we want to resolve the locations at run-time, not build or
> configure time.
If that is your intention then your original proposal was wrong to begin
with, because it resolves the locations even before build time.
