[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix='
From: |
Russ Allbery |
Subject: |
Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=' |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:36:15 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
Harlan Stenn <address@hidden> writes:
> I know that GNU coding standards really want package developers to allow
> one to be able to override the prefix at "make install" time and "it
> should just work". While I appreciate the goal and sentiment, sometimes
> that just isn't easy or feasible to do.
I disagree. It's worked relatively well for years and with some caution
will continue to work fine for nearly all packages on modern OSes. It
poses a few problems for libtool on particular architectures with weird
linking and shared library search issues, but those architectures are
becoming increasingly less common.
Thankfully, I just misunderstood the footnote entirely and nothing about
this change will affect that continued position.
--
Russ Allbery (address@hidden) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', (continued)
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', Russ Allbery, 2009/04/18
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', Jan Engelhardt, 2009/04/18
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', John Calcote, 2009/04/18
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', Jan Engelhardt, 2009/04/18
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/04/18
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=', Harlan Stenn, 2009/04/18
- Re: DESTDIR vs `make install exec_prefix=',
Russ Allbery <=