Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 05:56 PM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:18:17 +1100, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Okay. I'll wait a week or so for someone like Andreas or Andy to chime in and explain why there are no other INSTALL*SCRIPT entries, and if that doesn't happen I'll assume it's an error and I'll try to fix it. Sorry, I have no answer to this one. Would it be wrong to just put scripts into INSTALL*BIN? Do we really need to make a big distinction between executable binaries and executable scripts? The reason for 'script' being separated from 'bin' was that you can share scripts between architectures but usually cannot share binaries. If people actually make use of this distiction, nobody knows. It sounds like the kind of thing someone's going to be using somewhere, so it probably shouldn't get completely broken. If I were to fix this, I think there would be a few parts to it: 1) MakeMaker should try to determine a better place to put scripts (by guessing) 2) EU::Install should honor that 3) Config.pm should have INSTALLSITESCRIPT and INSTALLVENDORSCRIPT entries so MM doesn't have to guess In practice, I don't think any 'hints' files (in 5.8, anyway) have INSTALLBIN and INSTALLSCRIPT different, so it's probably pretty safe to guess from INSTALL*BIN, I think. Then I have to figure out how to cooperate/repeat with Module::Build. -Ken
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 07:54:18PM +1100, Ken Williams wrote: It sounds like the kind of thing someone's going to be using somewhere, so it probably shouldn't get completely broken. The two likely candidates are AFS users, who routinely shuffle files around all over the place and use obscure features of MM, and module repackagers (ie. Redhat, Debian, etc...) who need to seperate out architecture dependent vs independent bits. If I were to fix this, I think there would be a few parts to it: 1) MakeMaker should try to determine a better place to put scripts (by guessing) Should be possible using the same tricks as the other iffy variables in init_INSTALL(). 2) EU::Install should honor that It'll do that automaticly. It doesn't know anything about the INSTALL* variables, it just gets fed paths. ExtUtils::Install is really just a glorified copy command like GNU install. 3) Config.pm should have INSTALLSITESCRIPT and INSTALLVENDORSCRIPT entries so MM doesn't have to guess We'll still have to guess for all older versions, so no code savings there. :( In practice, I don't think any 'hints' files (in 5.8, anyway) have INSTALLBIN and INSTALLSCRIPT different, so it's probably pretty safe to guess from INSTALL*BIN, I think. Then I have to figure out how to cooperate/repeat with Module::Build. -- Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is Job One You see, in this world there's two kinds of people. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. Dig. -- Blondie, The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 12:37 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:54:22PM +1100, Ken Williams wrote: I'm curious about why INST_SCRIPT doesn't have different values in the three columns. Is this why things like LWP's HEAD script are installing to /usr/bin on OS X instead of to /usr/local/bin? Config.pm has installbin, installsitebin and installvendorbin but only installscript. Dunno why. There's no reason INSTALLSITESCRIPT and INSTALLVENDORSCRIPT couldn't be figured out like the other variables that aren't in Config.pm are. Honestly, I was just sick of the whole PREFIX problem and decided to leave it as is. I'll welcome a patch. Okay. I'll wait a week or so for someone like Andreas or Andy to chime in and explain why there are no other INSTALL*SCRIPT entries, and if that doesn't happen I'll assume it's an error and I'll try to fix it. Would it be wrong to just put scripts into INSTALL*BIN? Do we really need to make a big distinction between executable binaries and executable scripts? I'm ignorant of the important issues, but if we could just use INSTALL*BIN it wouldn't require patching Config.pm and all the stuff that generates it in the perl core. -Ken
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:18:17PM +1100, Ken Williams wrote: Would it be wrong to just put scripts into INSTALL*BIN? Do we really need to make a big distinction between executable binaries and executable scripts? I'm ignorant of the important issues, but if we could just use INSTALL*BIN it wouldn't require patching Config.pm and all the stuff that generates it in the perl core. I dunno, some people out there still worry that /usr/bin is for machine-code binaries and scripts should go elsewhere. *shrug* That's a boat I will leave to the Config folks to rock. -- Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is Job One Nature is pissed. http://www.unamerican.com/
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:18:17 +1100, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Okay. I'll wait a week or so for someone like Andreas or Andy to chime in and explain why there are no other INSTALL*SCRIPT entries, and if that doesn't happen I'll assume it's an error and I'll try to fix it. Sorry, I have no answer to this one. Would it be wrong to just put scripts into INSTALL*BIN? Do we really need to make a big distinction between executable binaries and executable scripts? The reason for 'script' being separated from 'bin' was that you can share scripts between architectures but usually cannot share binaries. If people actually make use of this distiction, nobody knows. -- andreas
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 02:49 AM, Soren A wrote: On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:54:22 GMT: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams) Oh, sheesh. Probably I was an idiot to answer this article of Ken's. I think he's probably well-aware of all the points I made; I momentarily blanked on who this poster was. I think I probably don't have such a high standard as that. =) And in any case, I'm not sure any human could keep track of all the MakeMaker options in his/her head at once. -Ken
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 02:15 PM, Soren Andersen wrote: On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:54:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams) wrote in news:814B3DD1-F061-11D6-AADE-003065F6D85A;mathforum.org: I'm curious about why INST_SCRIPT doesn't have different values in the three columns. Is this why things like LWP's HEAD script are installing to /usr/bin on OS X instead of to /usr/local/bin? I recently noticed this too. My guess is that there is an assumption that scripts are version-independent (or will take care of version dependency by 'requiring' some version, I s'pose). Therefore no alternative options are built in. It's not so much version issues I'm concerned about, it's the separation of vendor-installed user-installed scripts. I see that my Config.pm has these entries: installbin='/usr/bin' installscript='/usr/bin' installsitebin='/usr/local/bin' installvendorbin='/usr/local/bin' sitebin='/usr/local/bin' sitebinexp='/usr/local/bin' vendorbin='/usr/local/bin' vendorbinexp='/usr/local/bin' On my machine, the correct place for user-installed executables is /usr/local/bin, but unfortunately since there's no such thing as an installsitescript Config entry, they get shoved into /usr/bin, where they can (and do) clobber stuff that Apple installed there. If your Config.pm doesn't contain appropriate values for your system, OTOH, then you may want to edit it. I believe the above entries from my Config.pm are correct, but there still doesn't seem to be any opportunity for MakeMaker to install scripts to a site-specific directory. Schwern, I know you've spend time thinking about these issues, do you know why this is, and/or what should be done about it? -Ken
Re: INSTALLSCRIPT doesn't have 'site', 'vendor' values?
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 23:09:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams) wrote in news:AC3B221A-F113-11D6-A12F-0003939C4354;mathforum.org: On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 02:49 AM, Soren A wrote: On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 01:54:22 GMT: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams) Oh, sheesh. Probably I was an idiot to answer this article of Ken's. I think he's probably well-aware of all the points I made; I momentarily blanked on who this poster was. I think I probably don't have such a high standard as that. =) And in any case, I'm not sure any human could keep track of all the MakeMaker options in his/her head at once. I don't think so either. Tonight I may be nearly as close as i will ever get. By day after tomorrow probably half will have leaked out, at least. ;-) Soren A -- --*perlspinr*-- **Helping to consume excess Internet bandwidth since 1996**
