----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, January 2, 2004 10:46 pm Subject: Re: Principles of a developing from a dist or install?
> >>>>> "John" == jling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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). In my case, what I am distributing is a toolkit. So although there are simple users who may only execute certain binaries that are built from this distribution, these binaries are not the main focus of the install and such users are not the main audience. The primary class of users are application developers. With my package I am envisioning/expecting these users to install the package somewhere outside the source tree and into this install directory I would have the built libraries placed in here. Application developers would then need only look in one directory for all these libraries and one other directory for related header files. In this case, the source tree can then be completely wiped out. Then a third class of users would be those who futher develop the toolkit itself. These are the one's that I would want to give access to the full deep tree structure for their hacking pleasure. Such users do not need to > 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. Your reasoning for a single structure makes complete sense to me and I hope that I may convince others to see this reasoning and to go towards a single structure. Further comments and suggestions? By anyone? John
