config.site

silverspurg at comcast.net silverspurg at comcast.net
Sun Oct 30 20:00:42 PST 2005


On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:

> Yes, in the current "normal" LFS, this config.site file can be really used 
> for --prefix=/usr only. But let's move forward. There's no /usr/info, 
> /usr/doc and /usr/man compatibility symlinks in FHS 2.3, and LFS still has

I thought that I had FHS 2.2 printed out but, alas, I only have a hardcopy 
of 2.1.  Still, those directories aren't in 2.1 or 2.2 either.  So what's 
changed?

> them. In order to remove them, we must add --mandir and --infodir to each 
> package (and thus teach people bad habit of typing long commands when shorter 
> ones work), or use config.site.

We've not needed to use those before except in a few special cases.  Why 
are they so significant now?

Even if they are needed, though, I think it's important to stay with 
./configure options.  ./configure is a very important part of learning how 
to build packages on Linux.  Moving everything into a config.site file 
will take away from that exposure and, in the mind of a new user, move 
./configure farther and farther into the procedural background much like 
"make" and "make install" are now.

I agree that a config.site can be useful but I also feel that it's more 
appropriate for BLFS.

Steven
--



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list