On 1/24/2016 5:01 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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".
Just my .02 cents but I agree with Uwe. We cannot assume that the maintainers will not use whatever arbitrary name we give this "build" directory inside the source tree. Creating one outside the source tree guarantees there will never be a conflict with the maintainers. And, for what it's worth, my scripts use a subdir of the source tree named "destdir" for my destdir installs. I've never had a problem with a conflict with the maintainers. But, just to be on the safe side, a directory outside the source tree will never be an issue. -- Randy -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
