Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I'm at it I would like to suggest a change in the prefix default.
> I always use --prefix=/opt/package-0.0 where package-0.0 is replaced
> with the actual name of the package complete with version number. I can
> then link/copy the distro to the ap
> "Bernard" == Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bernard> I'm afraid I (and perhaps others) don't know "stow" :-( could
Bernard> you enlighten us?
http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/stow.html
Tom
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> So, I would like to suggest that instead of
> Earnie> --prefix=/usr/local as the default that
> Earnie> --prefix=/opt/package-major.minor.patch be the default.
>
> Earnie> Comment
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul D. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Universal Source Package: GNU Autoconf
> Solves Only Part
> of the Problem
>
> (3)
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> While I'm at it I would like to suggest a change in the prefix
Earnie> default. I always use --prefix=/opt/package-0.0 where
Earnie> package-0.0 is replaced with the actual name of the package
Earnie> complete with version number.
%% Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
eb> While I'm at it I would like to suggest a change in the prefix
eb> default. I always use --prefix=/opt/package-0.0 where package-0.0
eb> is replaced with the actual name of the package complete with
eb> version number. I can then link/copy
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> So, I would like to suggest that instead of
Earnie> --prefix=/usr/local as the default that
Earnie> --prefix=/opt/package-major.minor.patch be the default.
Earnie> Comments?
You're touching the untouchable, the GNU standards. Dr
I didn't realize this would start a major posting. I only skimmed the article
and posted so that you might leave your comments with the article. Frankly, I
detest "PackageManagers" as I most often want to put the package somewhere
else.
While I'm at it I would like to suggest a change in the p
I don't think we need to get carried away on this.
Why not start with the 90% solution start that just packages the
binaries together with a manifest ( which I would hope is the lowest
common denominator of package systems ).
Once that is accomplished, then you can start worrying about
rc file
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:53:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
FYI:
http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/02/12/950417940.html
I don't really see anything new here. People have observed the need
for a simple unified packaging system for a few years now. The trick
is no
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/02/12/950417940.html
The hard part isn't making a generic packager. The hard part is that
each system has different ideas of how packaging should be done. So
in order to do this properly you basica
11 matches
Mail list logo
