Re: files (Re: Patch for gnome-libs)

Elliot Lee <> writes:
> On 14 Mar 2000, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> > I have no problem with the gnome/conf/2 part, it's the $(datadir) part
> > that I am not too happy about.
> Sorry 'bout the confusion. I disagree with putting them in $(libdir) or
> $(libexecdir) because they are architecture-independant (AFAIK). 

No.  They are architecture dependent.  You substitute the value of
$(libdir) into that file, if I am not mistaken.

> If they are indeed arch-dependent, then they probably still go under
> libdir and not libexecdir - they're data files internally read by
> gnome-config, not really programs that get run (if you want
> technicalities, they get sourced not run :)

Yep.  AFAI remember, the GNU concept of $(libdir) is that it is where
libraries get installed.  The files probably don't fit
there.  $(libexecdir) doesn't exactly fit, but it is closer in spirit,
I guess. 

> > Also, the GNU notion if $(includedir) == $(prefix)/include is probably
> > different from the FHS notion of /usr/include (I think FHS considers
> > /usr/include as architecture dependent).  So, on FHS systems, it may
> > be OK to put gnomesupport.h into /usr/include, but that logic doesn't
> > carry over to the GNU layout.
> Are there any systems at all where $(exec_prefix)/include cannot be
> arch-dependant? Maybe if we just set execincludedir=$(exec_prefix)/include
> (which by default == $(includedir)), then we can install all these funky
> header files there.

I don't remember why we didn't do that...  I'm sure we came up with
that idea too.  Maybe Owen Taylor remembers.

- Hari
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash

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