Ken Moffat wrote:
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.
And let me add that it would never get into the book. We would find out
before any such commit.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
