Re: xxxConf.sh files (Re: Patch for gnome-libs)

[Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>]

On 14 Mar 2000, Raja R Harinath wrote:

> Dan Winship <danw@helixcode.com> writes:
> > > A fixit item for 2.0.
> > 
> > If we're moving things around, it would be nice to put gnome-config
> > scripts into $(libexecdir) ["The directory for installing executables
> > that other programs run."] rather than $(libdir) ["The directory for
> > installing object code libraries."]. (Because they're not the same
> > everywhere.)
> 
> Yep.  Actually, I think the current HEAD gnome-libs installs them into
> $(datadir)/gnome/conf/2, which is even worse than $(libdir).

The set of libraries needed to use a specific package depends on which
gnome-libs version you are using, hence the change.

> > gnomesupport.h and glibconfig.h don't belong in subdirs of $(libdir)
> > either, but unfortunately the GNU standards say you shouldn't have
> > architecture-dependent config files, so autoconf doesn't provide any
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > better place to put them.
>
> I know.  We did quite a bit of soul-searching ;-) when we put those
> files into $(libdir).  IIRC Owen Taylor suggested, and Tom Tromey
> seconded, that $(pkglibdir)/include was as sane a place as any.
>
> BTW, ITYM "architecture-dependent header files".  I don't know if they
> are explicitly forbidden, or just not supported. 

Whatever the GNU standards say, the reality is that header files are very
system- and architecture-dependant, so putting new header files under
$(libdir) is unnecessary.

-- Elliot
"Moron of the week" for four years running