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
