On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:39:42PM +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 October 2006 15:22, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:33:21PM +0200, glen wrote:
> > > Author: glen Date: Thu Sep 28 11:33:21 2006 GMT
> > > Module: SOURCES Tag: AC-branch
> > > ---- Log message:
> > > - %_x_libraries should use %{_prefix}, imho
> > >
> > > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
> > > %_oldincludedir /usr/include
> > > %_infodir %{_prefix}/info
> > > %_mandir %{_prefix}/man
> > > -+%_x_libraries /usr/X11R6/%{_lib}
> > > ++%_x_libraries %{_prefix}/X11R6/%{_lib}
> >
> > I disagree, it's constant /usr/X11R6 regardless of particular package
> > prefix.
> why isn't infodir/mandir then constant in similar manner?
There are other man and info trees (/usr/local/man for /usr/local,
/usr/X11R6/man for /usr/X11R6, there can be even /opt/sometree/man for
/opt/sometree).
So it's a different case.
/usr/local case would be similar to /usr/X11R6 - it should be referred
as /usr/local, not %{_prefix}/local (well, FHS.spec does the opposite,
but it assumes %{_prefix}=/usr anyway).
> and is there explained in detail what paths should be macros and what should
> be fixed in spec files.
>
> i've seen QTDIR=/usr and QTDIR=%{_prefix} in specs. no constistent approach.
Yes, there are inconsistencies.
If package itself could be built with different prefix, IMO it should
specify QTDIR=/usr. If package assumes %{_prefix} equal to other system
packages (e.g. uses %{_libdir}/kde3 directory), it doesn't
matter much.
--
Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.cs.net.pl/
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
