Re: How hardcode different default prefix? Hack Makefile.inbestway? use autoconf macro?

[Steve M. Robbins]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:57:30PM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> 
> > However: if you plan to release the code for general consumption,
> > think twice before using it.  There are few things that irritate this
> > software installer more than having "./configure; make install" put
> > stuff somewhere OTHER than /usr/local.
> 
> actually, there are other platforms than Linux; /usr/local doesn't have
> the same special status on many of those.

What you say is true.  However, I'm not sure what point you are trying
to make.

Perhaps my initial message was too terse, so let me expand.

Autoconf and automake promote a standard for configuring, building,
and installing software from source code.  The configure script is
always the same name; there are common switches to configure; the
makefile always has targets "all", "install", "install-strip", etc.
Having a standard method to install software is a very good thing,
particularly for sites that install loads of software coming from
different authors.  I don't want to go back to the bad old days of
"edit defs.h; edit Makefile ..."

One of the standards promoted by autoconf is the notion of installing
into the hierarchy rooted at $prefix.  There is a well-known method to
specify the prefix, and a well-known default if you don't.  The
installation location ought to be a decision made by the installer;
choosing the default location is a valid choice.  For software
targeted to a broad audience, breaking the standard by changing the
default helps no-one.

Regards,
-Steve

P.S.  There may be valid reasons for changing the default prefix; I
can think of none that I find compelling.  But I have no idea what
audience the original poster is targeting.