Re: Installation-issues

[Adrian Ratnapala <s369625@student.uq.edu.au>]

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Jan Ekholm wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Adrian Ratnapala wrote:
> >Exactly.
> 
> Well, according to 'Linux File Hierarchy Standard' /opt can be used for
> custom packages. Do a search on AltaVista with the keywords '+FHS +linux'
> and you'll fins it. The old FSSTND did not metntion /opt AFAIK, but this
> new one does. I think this means that /usr/local is reserved for stuff
> that's crafted at the local site, and not in common use, while /opt can be
> used for selfcontained packages. But this does really not matter at all.
> 

/opt is for such stuff.  Nowhere does FHS say that that /opt/bin etc.
exist.  They do say that /usr/local/bin etc. do exist.  And devtools
etcetera are already geared for using them.

> Yep, in order to build an RPM I still have to have a normal 'make install'
> in my sources that work ok. 'rpm' just picks the files from all around the
> filesystem into the foo.rpm -file after 'make install' has benn executed.
> This means that if I have a working bin/src-RPM then I also have a working
> tar.gz. I plan on using all three of them.

'make install' should put things where the autoconf prefix variables tell
it to put them. (Or an equivelent if you don't use autoconf).  When doing
an RPM build the spec file can set the prefix to /usr/.  Actually putting
all these things in /usr/ annoys me and I am only going along with it
because it seems standard. I would recommend making it a relocatable
package except that would mean effort.