>>>>> "John" == jling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Is there any sense in me having the user install the package (i.e. do John> a 'make install') and then have them develop off of the code in the John> install directory? ... assuming I have the source code and headers John> copied over during the install process. I can't say whether or not it makes sense. It isn't the standard thing, though, that's for sure. The typical approach is that "make install" simply installs the output of the build process, the idea being that the user can save some space by then deleting the source and build trees, if he so desires. Users who wish to hack on the package usually use the unpacked tree, both because it is already built (and therefore a simple change might involve less recompilation) and because it means these users and the maintainers will have a similar build structure and directory layout (so patches will apply more easily). John> Nevertheless what is the best way or ideal way to proceed? The general idea is to have one single structure used by everybody. This means less testing, less trouble applying patches, etc. People can generally navigate any sensible source layout, no matter how deep; I wouldn't normally consider that a big hurdle. Tom