-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 IMO the idea of installing some stuff in /usr/ and some other stuff in /usr/local/ is wrong. I will talk about this from a Linux-specific viewpoint, but some of what I say applies to other Unixalikes.
The Linux convention is that /usr/local/ is for software not handled by the package manager. So if you grab a source tarball and do 'make install', it will go into /usr/local/. However if you found an RPM package of that same software, it should be installed in /usr/. Now Perl has its own concept of 'site install' but this is not quite the same. I think that Perl's site_perl/ directory is used for any module which wasn't included with the perl5 source tarball. This is often, but not necessarily equivalent to that module being installed from a .tar.gz rather than from an RPM or similar package format. I think that to be FHS-compliant, MakeMaker should always install in /usr/local/ by default. OTOH, to be Perl-compliant you could argue that things should go into /usr/. I don't agree with that latter choice, I think the system conventions should take precedence, but I will say that files from a single 'make install' should *never* be installed in a mixture of /usr/ and /usr/local/. That is just too confusing. When using MakeMaker to build an RPM package (or its moral equivalent) then the build script will set PREFIX=/usr and things ought to work. The package would probably install things in /usr/lib/perl5/.../site_perl/, reflecting the fact that it is handled by the package manager (it's in /usr/ not /usr/local/) but as far as Perl is concerned it counts as a site-specific addition to the ordinary perl5 installation (it's in a directory site_perl/). - -- Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Finger for PGP key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8lbfyIMp73jhGogoRAt1pAJ45tq6yY68rBO8DM62aa+R/6xQFsgCfYpgi VOzSNYGIIyO/Isj38rqNOmQ= =K9BV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
