From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Subject: Re: need opinions from sysadmins on where reiser4progs should install Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:01:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4376E891.6070506@namesys.com> <43777B17.7010801@linspire.com> <437C0D7C.6090502@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <437C0D7C.6090502@namesys.com> (Hans Reiser's message of "Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:56:28 -0800") List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: Clifford Beshers , ReiserFS List Hans Reiser wrote: > Clifford Beshers wrote: >> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SBINSYSTEMBINARIES > > well, this says /sbin as I read it. Thanks for the URL Clifford! The FHS doesn't specify what the default installation prefix for a source tarball should be. That section says that distributions should install certain things in /sbin or /usr/sbin, and that admins who install similar things independently of the distribution should use /usr/local/sbin. Obviously that doesn't work in some cases, but that is what the FHS says: distributions and admins should choose those respective locations, regardless of the package's default. Since distributions' installations are typically automated and so can easily specify a non-default prefix, source tarballs generally default to /usr/local for the admins. As a result, admins will expect the default to be /usr/local, and they know how to use --prefix=/ if that's what they want. The principles of least surprise and least damage suggest that the default for reiser4progs should be /usr/local, just like every other package, *even if that means the default will rarely be used*. For myself, I only care that an explicit --prefix is used for every installed file, since I install to a different directory anyway. paul