On 11/28/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Or, to look at it another way, folks that *do* want to use the DESTDIR
> approach can simply add it to the instructions. :-)

I have been using that approach and it is not as easy as that.
Sometimes, we need to make sure that the destination dirs exist before
installing (i.e. have some install -d before the make DESTDIR=..
install.

>
> Every package README shows the instructions as
>
> configure
> make
> make install
>
> Why do we want to make it different than the maintainer suggests?

That is what the README says and as we know the documentation always
lags:) As per the documentation we should having been using gcc-2.95
to compile the kernel for a long time after we stopped it:)
Additionally, most of the distros do it the way that I mentioned for
the technical reasons that I gave in my proposal. You do want to be
able to upgrade glibc on a live system, right? :)

> If you don't trust the maintainer to put what he says he is on your
> disk, then use the DESTDIR, or some other method to ensure he is not
> screwing you.

I don't buy into all the reasons mentioned in the more_control...
hint. But I like the concept. Though my proposal is not based on the
reasons mentioned in the hint. I made the proposal because "what" is
installed by the system is a core part of creating a distribution.

> If it isn't a trust thing, and you want to figure out what all is
> being installed, then there are many, many ways to get that data.

Yep, and DESTDIR being the easiest and recommended (in the READMEs) way.

--
Tushar Teredesai
   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to