Doug Ledford wrote, >My spec files for both libibverbs and opensm include the related utilities >and diags. My one suggestion is that if you bother to create spec files for >a 1.0 release, then please don't use /usr/local, use the proper locations >for files as though they were something other than 1 off local builds. For >example all the scripts in the management tree use /usr/local as their >prefix, the configure program doesn't change them, so my rpm has a shell >environment file it drops in /etc/profile.d in order to get the scripts to >work without having to edit all the paths. I'd prefer not to have to have >that file in /etc/profile.d for an official 1.0 release ;-)
Also, should the makefiles in SVN target the "proper locations" rather than /usr/local ? Right now, my test all-on-one usermode RPM targets istall stuff in /usr/local, which isn't really the proper place but it is the default target for the makefiles in SVN which allows me to easily download and build a newer version of the code from SVN, since that is where all the makefiles want to put stuff. If the release .spec files put stuff into places like /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 and the makefiles from SVN by default put stuff into /usr/local, then if someone tries to get a newer version from SVN and build it on a platform that has the release code (in the proper places) they will end up with a mess and could have a mismatch of components depending on how they set their path. woody _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
