http://bugzilla.lysator.liu.se/show_bug.cgi?id=132
------- Additional Comments From ceder(a)lysator.liu.se 2003-09-28 23:23 -------
I think DESTDIR is a better method of handling this. Since stow-1.3.2 was
released in 1996, stow-1.3.3 in 2002, and no newer version exists, I don't
think stow can be said to be a reliable source about where the GNU project
is heading.
I'm surprised that dh-make uses the \$${prefix} method. I believe it is
an older way. Maybe it still works with more programs than the DESTDIR
method.
I'm not opening a new bug for this, unless a released version of
automake, autoconf or the GNU coding standards starts advocating the
\$${prefix} method.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://bugzilla.lysator.liu.se/show_bug.cgi?id=132
------- Additional Comments From peterk(a)debian.org 2003-09-28 23:14 -------
dh-make creates such command lines for packages with configure scripts, and it
works with most programs.
I misrememebered, it was the GNU stow manual that recommended the make install
prefix=something
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://bugzilla.lysator.liu.se/show_bug.cgi?id=132
------- Additional Comments From ceder(a)lysator.liu.se 2003-09-28 22:43 -------
The docs for automake-1.7.7 advocates the DESTDIR method for doing
staged installations, in *Note Install: (automake)Install. I have
never seen the \$${prefix} method being advocated. Could you give
me a pointer?
By "autotools", I take it that you mean "automake, autoconf, libtools
and the GNU coding standards". If you mean anything else, please point
me in the right direction.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://bugzilla.lysator.liu.se/show_bug.cgi?id=132
------- Additional Comments From peterk(a)debian.org 2003-09-28 20:48 -------
s/autotools stuff/autotools docs/
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://bugzilla.lysator.liu.se/show_bug.cgi?id=132
------- Additional Comments From peterk(a)debian.org 2003-09-28 20:46 -------
Sorry for not responding earlier: Yes, 2.1.x solves the problem, although it did
introduce some problems wrt the the way I was installing the package to another
directory than the final target directory (to fit it inside the Debian build
structure).
This is what I used in the 2.0.x packages:
./configure --prefix=/usr/lib/lyskom --exec-prefix=\$${prefix}/usr/lib/lyskom
--mandir=\$${prefix}/usr/share/man --infodir=\$${prefix}/usr/share/info
--sysconfdir=\$${prefix}/etc/lyskom-server
and
$(MAKE) install prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/lyskom-server
This combination made the paths.h go all wacko. For 2.1.x, I instead use this
combination:
./configure --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
--infodir=/usr/share/info --sysconfdir=/etc/lyskom-server
--localstatedir=/var/lib/lyskom-server
and
DESTDIR=$(CURDIR)/debian/lyskom-server $(MAKE) install
which seems to work fine.
You may want to review this, since the autotools stuff seem to prefer the first
variant.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
http://bugzilla.lysator.liu.se/show_bug.cgi?id=1120
ceder(a)lysator.liu.se changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Target Milestone|--- |2.1.3
------- Additional Comments From ceder(a)lysator.liu.se 2003-09-21 11:56 -------
Maybe we simply allow the clients to do too much work at once, so that
the select loop runs too seldom.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.