Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:01:02AM -0000, Simon Marlow wrote: >> Really? I'm not sure I always want to copy into >> $(copyprefix)/$(prefix), and even if I do, I can always set >> --copy-prefix appropriately. Perhaps I missed the rationale, but this >> doesn't seem like an improvement. > > It seemed like redundancy for the uses I was aware of, where copyprefix > is the root of a partial image of the whole tree. Maybe that doesn't > make sense in a world with drive letters. I won't complain.
FWIW, Ross's way is what you generally want in Debian, and I expect for other package systems; typically, the configure prefix is "/usr" and the copy prefix is "debian/packagename" so then you just tar up everything in "debian/packagename" and untar it into /. But as Simon pointed out, you can always add the configure prefix on if you want... I can't think of a time when you won't have access to it (like configuring on one machine and then using copy on another machine). I don't have any strong opinions, and it seems that neither does Ross. It seems like it's the "normal" thing to do since copy-prefix is kinda like destdir, but we're not calling it destdir, so that hardly matters. So Simon, if you think it's totally gross, then I'll revert it :) peace, isaac _______________________________________________ Cvs-libraries mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-libraries
