On Sat, 23 Jan 2016, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
I've thought about the proposal and wanted to make a list of pros and cons.
Please add to the list other things I have not thought of.
I'm not sure this is considered relevant for the book, but I'll mention it
nevertheless:
Cons:
3. I think it is cleaner to have the build dir outside the source dir (for
that kind of packages). Whenever something fails (which will admittedly
usually be caused by deviating from the book), I can just remove the build
dir and start over. Sure, I could do that for an internal build dir as
well, but it feels like the package maintainers area of responsibility
to decide whether there should be some subdir called "build" at any stage.
If there is an external dir, it tells me: delete it, all modifications are
here, the source dir is as clean as if I had just decompressed it -
without having to do so every time. For a subdir, I would expect some kind
of "make clean" to do that job instead. I just do not like having to care
whether e.g. an empty subdir called "build" would make a difference
for the build system. We may know that this is not the case with the
packages in question, but I do not like the general idea of "deleting
a subdir cleans the package".
BTW, OT: Is there a good reason why mails are To:
[email protected] but Reply-To:
[email protected] ?
Uwe
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
