 |
 |
Al, >Yup, shared libraries should go in lib/ that's the standard. Of course we >really should do away with /star and start putting applications in >/usr/bin/starlink and libraries in /usr/lib/starlink and the like, now >that would be standard... but perhaps a bit further than we want to go... I think that we should be capable of installing everything anywhere. Steve. -----Original Message----- From: Alasdair Allan [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 05 April 2004 12:20 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CVS] AST and general starconf issues > > > 4) Should sharable libraries go in star/share rather than star/lib? > > > > I think not. We have put them there in the past, when makefiles > > installed them at all, but this is definitely non-standard... > > I agree. It confused me when I found all those shared libraries in > $PREFIX/share. I think they should go into lib/ - it should only require a > one line change to star/etc/login Yup, shared libraries should go in lib/ that's the standard. Of course we really should do away with /star and start putting applications in /usr/bin/starlink and libraries in /usr/lib/starlink and the like, now that would be standard... but perhaps a bit further than we want to go... > > b) Isn't this part of the larger question of package management? In > > other words, would this question disappear if we started creating, and > > recommending the use of, RPMs or Debian PKGs? Yes, but I don't see why we can't have a "make uninstall" target, why do you object to it? > We could have had RPMs years ago if anybody had actually wanted it. It > did not depend on configure. No indeed it did not. I was probably a week's work to have a robust RPM distribution mechanism that would have put the entire Classic dist into relocatable RPM packages. There were a couple of minor tweaks needed in the build process and that was it. Tim and myself proved that quite conclusively with our prototype. I voluteered to do this several times, but nobody ever seemed keen. I'm still quite annoyed about that... > > 14) Should we preserve the distinction between `make install' and > > `make install-manifest'? > > > > That is, should I change it so that `make install' installs the > > manifest as well? I'm inclined to do this, unless anyone can think of > > a reason why this would be unhelpful. I see absolute no reason to differentiate between the two. Al.