Christopher Faylor wrote: > > In that case they can run directly from the 'inst' directory or copy it > around as needed. Creating a 'usr/local' under the inst directory > doesn't seem too useful too me. Although, IMO, it doesn't make sense to > test things in locations other than the standard one if you are > preparing a release. It's easy enough to revert to previous releases > with setup if there is a problem.
Depends on how long the "pre-release" period is. I've had a number of packages -- built using method2, prefix=/usr/local -- that I put together for my personal use ... e.g. db2 before Nicholas took over, libungif (still awaiting adoption), netpbm (ditto)... But, because I use them and want to have them installed -- BUT don't want their presence to be detected when I build the official packages that I maintain -- I don't want to install them into /usr. That way, I can exclude /usr/local/bin from my PATH, and /usr/local/lib isn't searched by default, so no "oops I linked cvs.exe against berkeley db instead of gdbm by mistake" problems. Granted, it's an ignore-able corner case... --Chuck
