[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: How to install scripts in a different place from binaries?

From: Mike Frysinger
Subject: Re: How to install scripts in a different place from binaries?
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 17:17:44 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )

On Monday, March 07, 2011 17:08:24 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 7 March 2011 21:52, Mike Frysinger <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 07, 2011 16:35:28 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> >> On 7 March 2011 20:46, Mike Frysinger <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > try naming it "foo_SCRIPTS" instead ?  then you'll have a --foodir=
> >> > configure option iirc.
> >> 
> >> So there's no standard way to install non-architecturally-dependent
> >> executables?
> > 
> > what i described is standard.  automake gets the directory name from the
> > first part (what comes before the "_") and figures out how to treat the
> > files via the second part (the primary -- what comes after the "_").
> >  the automake manual on the automake homepage describes all of this.
> Thanks for the workaround. What I'm trying to find is a standard
> variable that designates "directory in which to install
> architecture-independent executables." Your method seems to require me
> to define a new variable, so, fine, I can do that, and define it as
> ${prefix}/bin, but that's just another thing to maintain. I was trying
> to find out if this functionality was built in already; I guess you're
> saying it's not? Does this count as an omission, given that many
> packages will want to install architecture-independent executables?

the current framework does not provide for arch-independent scripts 
(PREFIX/bin or PREFIX/sbin).  it'd be trivial for you to default --foodir to 
'${prefix}/bin' so your proposed --prefix/--exec-prefix "just works".  but 
there are no default autoconf/automake directories to do this for you.

the documentation explains this too:

since automake defaults to the gnu coding standards, what you're in effect 
complaining about is that.  so i'd take it up with that group for extending 
the spec which would then trickle down to all the other gnu projects.

i could of course be talking out my ass ... i'm an automake tinkerer, not an 
expert like many people lurking here.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

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