Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Mikhail T.
Hello! I'm preparing a new port (net/udt), which installs a library with its header file and a handful of sample applications. The applications are rather generically named: sendfile, recvfile, test... Having them in ${PREFIX}/bin like that would be confusing. I see two alternatives: *

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Michael Scheidell
On 2/14/12 8:26 AM, Mikhail T. wrote: Hello! I'm preparing a new port (net/udt), which installs a library with its header file and a handful of sample applications. * use a port-specific subdirectory: ${PREFIX}/bin/udt/ (lua seems to do this) EXAMPLESDIR In your port dir, type:

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Mikhail T.
On 14.02.2012 10:25, Michael Scheidell wrote: EXAMPLESDIR I thought, EXAMPLESDIR is for actual examples, such as source code, not compiled and fully-functional executables... Indeed, the directory is under ${PREFIX}/share -- which, according to hier(7) is for architecture-independent files.

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Michael Scheidell
On 2/14/12 11:18 AM, Mikhail T. wrote: On 14.02.2012 10:25, Michael Scheidell wrote: EXAMPLESDIR I thought, EXAMPLESDIR is for actual examples, such as source code, not compiled and fully-functional executables... Indeed, the directory is under ${PREFIX}/share -- which, according to

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Ion-Mihai Tetcu
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:49:00 -0500 Michael Scheidell scheid...@freebsd.org wrote: On 2/14/12 11:18 AM, Mikhail T. wrote: On 14.02.2012 10:25, Michael Scheidell wrote: EXAMPLESDIR I thought, EXAMPLESDIR is for actual examples, such as source code, not compiled and fully-functional

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Mikhail T.
On 14.02.2012 13:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: The other idea of prefixing them is_much_ better. Ok, so which flavor of prefixing do you prefer? Should the executable bar be installed as bin/foo-bar or as bin/foo/bar? -mi ___

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Chris Rees
On 14 Feb 2012 18:54, Mikhail T. mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com wrote: On 14.02.2012 13:17, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: The other idea of prefixing them is_much_ better. Ok, so which flavor of prefixing do you prefer? Should the executable bar be installed as bin/foo-bar or as bin/foo/bar?

Re: Installing executables with generic names

2012-02-14 Thread Ade Lovett
On 2/14/2012 11:27, Chris Rees wrote: bin/foo-bar means it can still be called without an explicit path, so that is better. Look for autoconf hooks to add prefices this way (if it uses configure...) Please also don't forget to scream at the upstream to stop using such generic names too.