Re: FHS && ./configure

[Guido Draheim]

Es schrieb Raja R Harinath:
> 
> You can usually use the following command to generate something more
> FHS compliant
> 
>   ./configure --prefix=/usr \
>               --sysconfdir=/etc \
>               --infodir=/usr/share/info \
>               --mandir=/usr/share/man
> 
> However this is not always right.  FHS may require some of the
> binaries be installed in /bin and /lib rather than /usr/bin and
> /usr/lib, etc.
> 
> All in all, it is better not to use 'configure'/'make install' to
> manage your system binaries but use some kind of packaging system.
> 

correct, ... and at the same time, inconvenient for the quick builds
when carrying a tarball of my projects around. It should be then just
configure/make/make-install even for win32-target where the files
should go under /programs, and it for quite some unices a different
scheme about /opt packs is virulent. I hacked up a macro for that, but 
as noted above, it's use it not recommend - it just happens to be there ;-)

http://ac-archive.SF.net/guidod/ac_set_default_paths_system.html

by the way, to be FHS compliant with a single prefix-system is a
very hard task - manpages go to /usr/local/man but /usr/share/man
when under /usr. The /usr-packages should put their configs into
/etc, and the /opt packages use /var/opt for localstatedir. And
therefore, there is not ONE prefix + x * subdirs system that will
exactly match FHS guidelines - it should be left to the local
packaging system to set the paths to where it should go.

The only thing I want to raise my voice again - please add a
generic docprefix where all these docprefix/{man|info|help|html}
files can be put under, nuke manpath/infodir in the distant
future. pleeeeeease....

cheers,
-- guido                            Edel sei der Mensch, hilfreich und gut
GCS/E/S/P C++$++++ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)