From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,de92eb048dc3c019 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:34:06 -0600 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Library file locations References: <87acbl8hc9.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <36ZTf.1851$ay4.142@reader1.news.jippii.net> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:30:13 +0100 Message-ID: <878xr377nu.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:v8ud+oYth7eh+pR8wQx8BE8/AfY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.55.109 X-Trace: sv3-OuEeXoTA5eQChtmddrt9vVVl+gwG7Mt0qE9gpdg+cF3+ila8Rzl9K8GOYb58mvTPHBxipKquZZ8zEeL!GeTI8EsgRJYQ2Co/YIgBu1IdfTBcsXht9g0MwKZLhxRH+OwWrQjSg4UMeZMALR3+ug971CiGVg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3534 Date: 2006-03-21T23:30:13+01:00 List-Id: Tapio Kelloniemi writes: > I don't think that /usr/local is very non-standard location for installing > software. Actually if I daily used a system where there is a package manager > provided by the distro, I would not install programs compiled by myself in the > /usr hierarchy. You know better than I what happens if a sysadmin installs a > package in /usr which overwrites a file already installed by the distro. > Therefore it is good practice to install under /usr/local to prevent messing > up the system's package management, and for other reasons as well. > This is why /usr/local should be supported automatically or at least easily. > What comes to setting ADA_PROJECT_PATH in a Makefile: > Imagine that I have installed some Ada library under /usr/local (the distro > provides a precompiled binary, but I want to enable a feature X required by > package A). Then I compile A. If the library and the package A were written in > C, I would do the following to compile A: > ./configure && make && make install > > As they are written in Ada, I do: > ./configure --with-additional-ada-project-path=/usr/local/share/ada/adainclude > > And what if the configure script does not support the above > mentioned option? I would have to edit Makefiles, possibly run > automake, etc. If the compilation process happens to be automated, I > must write some nasty sed scripts to do the job. Ada programs do not normally require configure scripts. I tend to think of configure scripts as symptoms of bad engineering. Automake? Why use automake? KISS! ADA_PROJECT_PATH=/usr/local/share/ada/adainclude make is sufficient and addresses your concern that "/usr/local should be supported automatically or at least easily" - for easy it is, indeed. And yes, if it's under /usr/local, then it's outside of the distro's responsibility - "someone else's problem" is indeed "the administrator's problem". A second easy way to support /usr/local is: echo "ADA_PROJECT_PATH=/usr/local/share/ada/adainclude" >> /etc/environment which is, of course, an implementation of a local (system-wide) policy decided by the administrator and not the distro. -- Ludovic Brenta.