On 20 Dec 2011, at 9:34 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> -PROGRAMS = $(PROGRAM_NAME) >> -TARGETS = $(PROGRAMS) $(shared_build) $(other_targets) >> +sbin_PROGRAMS = $(PROGRAM_NAME) >> +TARGETS = $(sbin_PROGRAMS) $(shared_build) $(other_targets) > > Yow. That defies every naming convention I've ever observed. Can't we > pick one case or the other? Perhaps even "SPROGRAMS" vs PROGRAMS, or > "SYSPROGRAMS"?
This is the standard convention that's used by automake, I'm not keen on inventing another arbitrary format if I can avoid it: http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html#Uniform >> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/build/rpm/httpd.spec.in >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/build/rpm/httpd.spec.in?rev=1220867&r1=1220866&r2=1220867&view=diff >> ============================================================================== >> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/build/rpm/httpd.spec.in (original) >> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/build/rpm/httpd.spec.in Mon Dec 19 17:27:13 >> 2011 > >> %{_sbindir}/ab > > sbin? > >> %{_sbindir}/logresolve >> %{_sbindir}/httxt2dbm > > sbin? > >> %{_sbindir}/apxs > > sbin? I initially moved tools to match the existing documentation, which has historically divided the tools up between section 1 (bin) and section 8 (sbin), possibly arbitrarily: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/man > None of these require the user to be administrator, except to use the > apxs -i option. Not really sure if these make sense. Any pointers to > a decent canonical definition of sbin v bin? You're right, the current split doesn't seem to make much sense. I think apxs belongs in bin, given that "apxs -i" is the same as "make install" and make goes in bin. In the case of ab, logresolve, httxt2dbm and rotatelogs, these are definitely bin. Regards, Graham --
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
