Hi all, After 6 weeks and a Slink->Potato upgrade, I've got to say I like Debian a whole lot and am definitely going to move it on up to the big box as soon as Potato goes stable and CD's are available...
But*, one tiny, core question remains. Which is it: /usr/src, /usr/local/source, /usr/local/src? I don't know, maybe it's the 16 years of Catholic School. I came to Debian from Red Hat because I'd heard it was more 'canonical', more 'structured', closer to the 'soul' of Linux and open source. I wanted an underlying OS that would provide an almost liturgical standard that I could build upon, develop within, even 'commit sins' with, and still find it as steady as a rock and willing to forgive. Some docs and HOWTO's say to build Linux in /usr/local/source; some mail, even from this list, mentions /usr/local/src; make-kpkg, I believe, builds into /usr/src. Sweet 'apt-get --configure source' will build where ever I happen to be at the moment. I asked a well-debbed, not-to-be-named guru why this was and he told me so that Debian could avoid interference between what it configures and what some unknown third-party developer or I configure. Well, here on the little test box, I chose to put the heads of all source-trees into /usr/local/source and symlink both /usr/src and /usr/local/src to /usr/local/source. As I prepare to Debianize the big box, it would really help to know either 'The Correct Way' or 'The Reason(s) Why' for this most basic, initial, yet essential, decision. I want to start with as 'canonical' a box as possible so that I can truly be 'free' thereupon. So. Which is it: /usr/src, /usr/local/source, /usr/local/src or all of the above and let the pieces fall where they may? Thanks for whatever guidance you may send my way, and for your patience with montefin *You never really know what somebody's saying until after they use the word 'but'.
