[Dirvish] restructuring the dirvish install process
paul at debian.org
Fri Dec 17 13:02:34 PST 2004
On Fri 17 Dec 2004, Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:38:00PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> > The phrase "must still ask" implies to me interactivity. Distribution
> > builders won't want that... I now echo a string to the configure script
> > that gives the right responses, but that's pretty sucky to maintain.
> > Being able to pass "answers" via options or environment variables is
> > pretty much a "must" IMHO.
> Good idea. If I understand you, the install software should look for
> --[options] that set the install locations for the software if it is
> not the default. Will the default be different for different distributions?
> If so, what file should contain the defaults?
Some distributions may choose other locations for the executables (e.g.
I disagreed with JW about the location of dirvish, dirvish-runall, and
dirvish-expire; I put those in /usr/sbin/ instead of /usr/bin/ as I
considered those not to be commands for all users). Also, the
sunfreeware.com packages often offer a choice of /opt or /usr/local as
the install location.
For me it's fine if some --[options] would be available to override
defaults (mostly extra packages, when built and installed by the user,
will install under /usr/local/ somewhere, whereas distribution packages
will install into / so the default should be to put things in
/usr/local/ IMHO). Packagers will make their build scripts or whatever
use the correct options for their choices.
> Keith wrote:
> > ... The versions of perl and rsync and ssh used should be noted
> > and probably tested.
> Paul writes:
> > Mostly a minimum version number is required, which could be determined
> > by e.g. rsync --version. Make this testing overridable though, as when
> > building a package for a distribution it would be silly to require e.g.
> > rsync to be installed.
> Should the default be "test" or "no test", and where should the default
> be, and how should the command line override it?
I'd say default should be to test; an option such as --without-toolcheck
or so should be fine (GNU autoconf uses that form of option, which is
pretty convenient once you're used to it).
> Keith wrote:
> > ... We should
> > > be making man pages, but it is more standard to make pod and info files
> > > for perl and gnu packages respectively. How do you folks want your
> > > documentation served?
> Paul writes:
> > Debian requires manpages to be available. That's my preferred format as
> > well :-)
> I like man pages too. If nobody else wants info or pod, there is no
> reason to bother. Any suggestions on the process of maintaining them?
There's "docbook" stuff for managing documentation (including manpages).
(I may have the name wrong...) I'll look into that sometime the coming
> I do want to put visible dates and version numbers on the pages; if
> Paul, I will be counting (a LOT!) on your experienced input. Thank you
> for your contributions. A general question for you - what is an example
> of a well structured small Perl package, similar to dirvish, that
> installs nicely with Debian (and SUSE and Fedora as well)?
Hmm, I'll get back to you on that one, no time right now to check that.
More information about the Dirvish