|
|
Blitz Devel : |
From: Reid Rivenburgh (reid_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-03 16:05:33
Julian Cummings writes:
> I think the rationale behind the current installation scheme is to
> install all Blitz files directly below the chosen prefix, rather
> than creating an additional Unix-like directory hierarchy there.
> The expectation is that the user will choose as their prefix
> something like /usr/local/tools/Blitz, not /usr/local. Also, the
> benchmark and example codes are present merely for reference. They
> are not needed as part of the installation. I think the approach
> here is fairly consistent with how other shareware tools are
> installed (c.f. mpich). I suppose the benchmark and example areas
> could be grouped together under a share subdirectory, but I see no
> strong advantage to doing that.
Hi, Julian, thanks for the reply. I have no problem with a scheme
like you describe if I'm warned about it before installing. But it is
very common to download a package, run configure with the defaults,
and make and make install. It's assumed (maybe a little foolishly!)
that those steps will do the "right thing", which on a Linux system is
how I described it. I was a little surprised when it installed some
of the files where it did. It's sort of like untarring a package in
/usr/local and finding out after the fact that it didn't make its own
directory....
I'd suggest doing the following:
1. Change the default prefix to something other than /usr/local,
perhaps /usr/local/Blitz.
2. Make it clearer in the INSTALL file that "make install" does what
you describe above. Unless you explicitly state it, I think most
people will assume (like I did) that it works like most other
packages, putting things under /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib,
/usr/local/share, etc.
3. Since the benchmarks and example codes are optional, maybe a second
install target for them ("make install-extras"?).
Thanks,
Reid