On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:40:49PM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> why? if you are manually running ./configure, is it that much more
> to add --prefix=/opt or whatever? if the argument is to keep manually
> installed programs separate, isn't that the responsibility of the
> person doing the manual installation?
Yes, I agree: but notice, please, the difference in approach:
- you have to take care to keep your system clean
- you've got a tidy system "by default"; and you have to make efforts, if you
really want to make a mess
No, I'm not going to say, that OpenBSD is "untidy". All I said is: it's
better (at least more comfortable), when system keeps itself tidy with no
additional action from user's side. If - for example (just example!) - one
doesn't even has to remember, that at the "./configure" stage there wasn't
any need to switch to another directory-tree.
> and if some software has no
> --prefix type option, then isn't that really the fault of the
> software in question, as opposed to ports?
Yes, but sometimes (rare case, I agree) you've got to install something,
which has /usr/local "hardcoded". And then it's no longer a switch - you've
got to edit Makefile "manually". And yes - I can edit such file and change
path, but... perhaps better use of that needed editing time could be to have
a cup of tea instead, for example. ;)
> also, if you can compile a source package, building a basic port
> should be doable. and from there, documenting dependency info is
> probably useful anyway, right?
Yes, reading now the "porting" docs...
--
pozdrawiam / regards
Zbigniew Baniewski
