Re: Principles of a developing from a dist or install?

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "John" == jling  <address@hidden> writes:

John> Is there any sense in me having the user install the package (i.e. do 
John> a 'make install') and then have them develop off of the code in the 
John> install directory? ... assuming I have the source code and headers 
John> copied over during the install process.

I can't say whether or not it makes sense.  It isn't the standard
thing, though, that's for sure.  The typical approach is that "make
install" simply installs the output of the build process, the idea
being that the user can save some space by then deleting the source
and build trees, if he so desires.  Users who wish to hack on the
package usually use the unpacked tree, both because it is already
built (and therefore a simple change might involve less recompilation)
and because it means these users and the maintainers will have a
similar build structure and directory layout (so patches will apply
more easily).

John> Nevertheless what is the best way or ideal way to proceed?

The general idea is to have one single structure used by everybody.
This means less testing, less trouble applying patches, etc.  People
can generally navigate any sensible source layout, no matter how deep;
I wouldn't normally consider that a big hurdle.

Tom