Re: need opinions from sysadmins on where reiser4progs should install

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Philippe Gramoullé wrote:

>Hello,
>
>On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 05:07:23 +0100
>rvalles <rvalles@es.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>  | When I run make install on something and haven't specified a prefix on
>  | configure, I expect /usr/local to be used. If I wanted /, I'd have
>  | specified that on configure time. If it installed in / by default, it
>  | would, often, hit the "sacred package-system managed area" of the VFS
>  | tree annoying people like me to a very great extend, so please don't.
>
>While i totally agree with you for standard packages, well i based my choice
>on actual experience of the last past six years of use with reiserfs V3.
>
>I can't remember how many times i heard Namesys team say " Install the latest
>& greatest reiserfsck", how many times distro thought they knew reiserfsprogs
>internals better than Namesys and customized it to the point where it would
>eventually break.
>
>Of course, i can live with a manual install of reiser(fs|4)progs, so i don't
>really mind, but talking of support, it can make quite a difference to Namesys
>in terms of support, and annoyance with bug reports that could have been easily
>avoided.
>  
>
Ok, I propose the following: search the standard locations for where it
is currently, tell the user, ask the user if they want to rename those
versions to *.old if the install of the new one succeeds, and then
prompt for the install location with /sbin as the suggested default.  I
think that unlike other user installed programs, fsck does not belong in
/usr/local.  I think Philippe's point that old versions are dangerous is
quite valid.

>Final decision will still be Namesys call, but hopefully this whole thread gave
>them some valuable input to make the best decision.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Philippe
>
>
>  
>