On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 07:35:50PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: > On 1/24/2016 5:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >3. I think it is cleaner to have the build dir outside the source dir (for > >that kind of packages). Whenever something fails (which will admittedly > >usually be caused by deviating from the book), I can just remove the build > >dir and start over. Sure, I could > >do that for an internal build dir as well, but it feels like the package > >maintainers area of responsibility to decide whether there should be some > >subdir called "build" at any stage. If there is an external dir, it tells > >me: delete it, all modifications > >are here, the source dir is as clean as if I had just decompressed it - > >without having to do so every time. For a subdir, I would expect some kind > >of "make clean" to do that job instead. I just do not like having to care > >whether e.g. an empty subdir > >called "build" would make a difference for the build system. We may know > >that this is not the case with the packages in question, but I do not like > >the general idea of "deleting a subdir cleans the package". > > Just my .02 cents but I agree with Uwe. We cannot assume that the > maintainers will not use whatever arbitrary name we give this > "build" directory inside the source tree. Creating one outside the > source tree guarantees there will never be a conflict with the > maintainers. >
True, but that will only happen with a new release, and if it happens it should be fairly obvious. ĸen -- This email was written using 100% recycled letters. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
