> I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the files
> in etc or opt rather and not in the source directory. I guess I look at
> "build" as more equivalent to "make", because I ususally just copy the
> resulting directory structure from build to the production location
> manually.
Take a look at any RedHat ( or any similar, RPM-based linux system):
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/my-package
/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/my-package
Not that RedHat is doing it the "right" way - it's just a valid way to do
things that keeps the source clean.
> While the proposed new solution may not completely be the *nix standard,
> it is, IMHO, a little better than the current method inasmuch as it is not
> recursing up the directory structure. That has always struck me as a
> little unsafe for reasons that i, admittedly, cannot fully quantify (just
> a feeling). My opinion would be that the new structure be the default. I
I can say the same about building in the source directory... It just feels
wrong and ugly ( kind of like having .class and .java in the same
directory, instead of using javac -d ).
> know that there are enough scripts in place that it would be a subtle pain
> for some, but there always seems to be something to change between
> releases anyway :-)
I would rather change java code...
--
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
