Subject: Re: Installation of additional software
To: Hubert Feyrer <Hubert.Feyrer@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
From: Jesus M. Gonzalez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/13/1994 15:44:03
> > We keep binaries in separate directories under /usr/local/installed.
> > We make links from /usr/local/bin, and sometimes from /usr/local/lib.
> > For man we are currently using MANPATH.
> I guess linking to /usr/local/man would be ok, too. :)
We usually prefer using MANPATH. Directories under man tend
to be large, and its difficult to know what man pages are part
fo what packages... MANPATH deals with it in a simple and flexible
way. And when you want to delete a package, you just rm the directory
under installed... Of course this may be diffeent if you have a tool...
Then you could just use it to delete the man pages... if you have
a file with the info.
> > > So, what method should be used for the (de)installation of all
> > > the additional precompiled software-packages?
> > We are thinking about a tool that reads a list of files and
> > make links to them from /usr/local/bin or whatever. The same
> > list can be used to deinstall (just by deleting the links and the
> > dir). If you lost the list, you can do it easily by hand: you have
> > only well defined places to look at. And at worst, you can get a couple
> > of dangling symlinks... Using that in combination with /usr/general
> > (e.g., placing man pages under /usr/general/installed/package_name/man)
> > can help when you have lots of architectures.
> I've written such an install-script. You tell it which binaries,
> man-pages, etc. to install, and it will link them from the
> "package-private" directory (/usr/general, or whatever) into a
> "public" directory (/usr/local/bin, .../man, ...).
Well, the thing is a bit more complicated.... Under /usr/general/arch
you have the 'real dirs' for different OSs. /usr/local/bin in NetBSD is,
for example, a link to /usr/general/arch/netbsd/usr.local/bin.
When you want to get a package and install it, you first go to
/usr/general/distrib (if distirubtion is source) or to
/usr/local/packages/distrib (if its binary for the architecture).
You open a new dir there, and ftp the package. Then, if it is
'ready to run' (eg., binaries, Tcl/Tk scripts and so on), you
open a dir under /usr/local/packages/installed or under
/usr/general/installed, and unpack the thing there (usually, with
bin, doc, lib, man subdirectories). The you config things so that
e.g. config files are found, and make links *only for the binaries*
(and libs, if other packages may need them). Add the new man path
to MANPATH, and everithing is ready. All machines of that architecture
on the net (or *all* the machines, if the thing was general)
see the package, and can work with it.
If the package needs to be compiled, I use to unpack it
under /usr/local/packages/test, configure and compile there, test it
if possible, and install under /usr/local/packages/installed.
Anyway, most of this scheme is 'static', in the sense that
you need only having a couple of links in all the machines
(for example, from /usr/local to /usr/general/arch/OS-type/usr.local),
and /usr/general importe by all the machines. The only `dynamic'
links ---that must be done per package--- are those under
/usr/local/bin... That where your tool can be very useful.
> If you're interrested in the script (there's alsoa uninstall-script),
> you can get it on ftp.uni-regensburg.de (the inofficial main site for
> NetBSD/amiga) in /pub/NetBSD-Amiga/contrib/EasyInstall-1.0.tar.gz. To
> read the README, type: "sed s,/opt,/usr/local,g README | more" (As I
> thought of using another directory for placing packages, I adopted
> SVR4's /opt system, and got heavy flames for calling it so... maybe
> /usr/general is just better? ;-)
Well, I'll try your tool... Sounds good. (about /opt, yes
I prefer /usr/general, but that may be a religious war.... ;-) )
> Sure as hell true. We've even started putting up such a reprository
> for NetBSD/amiga on ftp.uni-regensburg.de, but right now it's rather a
> throw-together of some tar-archives, with different packages using
> different install-methods, -directories, etc.
Maybe this is the time for discussing this... I have some
space in a ftp server, wich I can devote to NetBSD/i386. Maybe
now, with the upcoming 1.0, it's the right moment...
What do you think, netbsd users?
Jesus M. Gonzalez Barahona | Universidad Carlos III (Madrid, Spain)
tel: +34 1 624 94 58 | e-mail: email@example.com
fax: +34 1 624 94 30 | firstname.lastname@example.org
(Sometimes our headers are not o.k., please reply to any of this addresses)
.From within Universidad Carlos III, you can better use email@example.com