Subject: Re: Ported software
To: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
From: Jesus M. Gonzalez <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/14/1994 11:39:16
	Again here...
> > 3) Everything should install in /usr/local.  I could be convinced
> >    that some other hierarchy is appropriate, but there should not be
> >    more than one hierarchy for the ported software as a whole.
> I'm not sure what you mean by the part after the last comma - do you
> mean that (a) the package should demand to live under a single root
> point, (b) that it should be capable of living under a single root
> point, or (c) b plus when so configured, changing that point involves
> changing just one thing?
> In my opinion, (a) is a bit obnoxious but tolerable with symlinks if
> necessary (eg, binaries on a RO filesystem and save files on a RW
> filesystem), (b) borders on necessary, and (c) is nice but not
> essential as long as all the things that need to be changed are close
> together (eg, adjacent lines in some file).  It's nice to have
> 	#define TOPDIR "/usr/local/foopkg/"
> 	#define BINDIR TOPDIR "bin/"
> 	#define MANDIR TOPDIR "man/"
> 	#define LIBDIR TOPDIR "lib/"
> ...
> What I would have trouble putting up with is having those strings
> scattered throughout multiple files, or not present in a single
> easily-modifiable form.

	Beeing in the front of those who think that source packages
should be modified as little as possible, I think we should
stuck to what the package does. They use to have a TOPDIR or something
like that defined. Or they can be easily taugth to use one. So, the
thing maybe shouldn't be "what do we want for source packages" but
"how do we deal with source packages as they are".

	On the other hand, things are different fo rbinary packages.
I think it is important to agree on a schema, so that a user
can just take the bin packages of her choice, install them
---if possible with some automated tool---, and just begin to play.
I think that means agreen on where to put things *exactly*
---or maybe with a small degree of flexibility using symlinks...
> (As for /usr/local as the place of choice, well, personally, /usr/local
> is as useless as /usr/bin; if it can't go in a directory of my choice
> under /local, it generally doesn't go anywhere but /dev/null.)

	I agree again, except in "my choice". Again, I think binary
packages should be to a determined place. Of course, with
src packages, enyone can do whatever she likes...

Jesus M. Gonzalez Barahona    | Universidad Carlos III (Madrid, Spain)
tel: +34 1 624 94 58          | e-mail:
fax: +34 1 624 94 30          |
(Sometimes our headers are not o.k., please reply to any of this addresses)
.From within Universidad Carlos III, you can better use