On 2012-05-10 17:02:19 (+0100), Nelson Marques <nmo.marques@gmail.com> wrote:
The correct way would be to properly patch the software, maybe including support for DESTDIR and submit upstream... That sort of fixes is in my humble opinion 'the way of the slacker'...
Wouldnt it be more benefic for all if this changes would be applied by upstream? I would suppose so... but what would I know about it ;)
A patch for DESTDIR support, yes, definitely, as that is good practice. Something like going from prefix = /usr/local libdir = $(prefix)/lib/nut bindir = $(prefix)/bin mandir = $(prefix)/man/man1 to this: DESTDIR = prefix = /usr/local libdir = $(prefix)/lib/nut bindir = $(prefix)/bin mandir = $(prefix)/man/man1 (and obviously use $DESTDIR in the install target) As well as making strip optional. But changing the prefix from /usr/local to /usr is not, in my opinion, something one should push to upstream, as when someone builds from source without any packaging, /usr/local is actually the right spot. But as said, the paths depend on the distribution (e.g. mandir, it's not /usr/share/man everywhere, in the olden days and on some current distributions (eg. slackware if I'm not mistaken), it's /usr/man), and they are properly defined as variables in the Makefile. The purpose of such variables is to be overridden when invoking make. That's precisely what they have been made for (just like there are parameters in configure), so why not use them, why going through the hassle of a patch. For DESTDIR, though, I agree, but using make prefix="%{buildroot}{_prefix}" works too. Depends on how much time you want to spend on packaging it, and your level of experience. [...] cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf