Re: [HACKERS] Build problem with CVS version

On Thursday 06 September 2001 07:46 pm, John Summerfield wrote:
> I'd point out this from the INSTALL document:
> --prefix=PREFIX
[snip]
> Installing everything under --prefix (as the document says) would also
> help package builders; the current rpm looks pretty horrible (and
> that's why I didn't pursue THAT path).

Blame the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard and the Linux Standards Base
for the directory structure of the RPMset. Things have to be in specified
locations to be FHS compliant -- and the current RPMset is, to the best of my
knowledge, FHS compliant.

Horrible looking is in the eye of the beholder, BTW. Some think that a
separate prefix for each software package looks horrible and that the
intermingled nature of the FHS looks cleaner (which it does from a PATH point
of view, for sure).

It just comes down to the OS philosophy you deal with. BSD ports, for
instance, has a very different package philosophy from Solaris, which is
different yet from Domain/OS, which is different yet from the LSB.
PostgreSQL is very BSDish -- and, while I have to cut cartwheels to finagle
it into an LSB mold, being BSDish is not a bad thing. Neither is being
LSBish -- both have their place. The is no One True Filesystem spec...

As to the can't install perl client issue, the install can fail, even if done
as root, if you are building for installation at some other location in the
filesystem.

The perl client install phase fails every time I build an RPMset -- the RPM
spec file has to go through some steps to make it work.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11