[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] --prefix=/usr/local issues

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] --prefix=/usr/local issues
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:30:08 -0400

>Currently we install the etc stuff into ${prefix}/etc, which spams
>/usr/local/etc pretty hard when faced with --prefix=/usr/local.
>Personally, I'm not a fan of the /usr/local/nmh default prefix, and
>would prefer to see it changed to /usr/local, with the configdir
>stuff pushed down a level to $prefix/etc/nmh. (And libexec stuff in
>$prefix/libexec/nmh, etc) I think most people expect things to install
>this way, and just show up in their $PATH (which, presumably, already
>has /usr/local/bin in place).

A few nits to this.  Technically we install in etc stuff in
"sysconfdir", which defaults to $(prefix)/etc.  Backend programs SHOULD
go in "libexecdir",which defaults to $(exec_prefix)/libexec, but for
various dumb historical reasons they go into "libdir" which defaults
to $(exec_prefix)/lib.

Last time this was brought up by me, here:


No one really spoke up in favor of changing it.  Norm spoke up that he
liked it the old way (even though it was causing him man page problems that
he ultimately resolved).

The problem is as I see it that it's easily changeable on the configure
command line, so there's significant inertia to not changing the default.
I know, I know ... you're going to say, "people who like it the old way
can easily change it".  The obvious response to that is, "people who like
it the NEW way can easily change it".  We're really just arguing about
the default here.

To me there is no obvious "right" answer.  Can you and Norm just have a
steel-cage match and the winner gets to pick?  That would save us from
having to make a decision :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]