Opened 19 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
#1492 closed defect (fixed)
Building in /usr/src not recommened by FHS
Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | high | Milestone: | 6.2.0 |
Component: | BOOK | Version: | b-6.1-pre1 |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description
Noted in the "Notes on Building Software" section of Chapter 2 we somewhat recommend to download the source into /usr/src and build from there.
According to the FHS (see subnote 35), "Generally, source should not be built from within this hierarchy". I think we should abide by this recommendation and suggest a different location.
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
They don't give a rationale--curious. They do mention that the /usr directory is often shared amoung multiple systems.
In any case, I've been putting my sources and build scripts in /usr/src/pkgname and having the script cd /tmp; build; clean up. (The log dows go back to /usr/src/pkgname, but that is specific to the editor's job.) Does that seem like a reasonable approach for the book as an alternative?
comment:3 by , 19 years ago
The most reasonable seems to not mention a directory and leave such trivial policy to the reader. /usr should not hold logs as they are system dependant. For that matter, it probably shouldn't hold a source tree that has already been compiled because you cannot guarantee system independence.
comment:4 by , 19 years ago
Milestone: | future → 6.2 |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from | to
comment:5 by , 19 years ago
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
comment:6 by , 19 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
Removed the reference to /usr/src from the "Notes on Building Software" section of Chapter 2.
Or don't recommend a location and leave that to the individual. By the time they reach BLFS, they _should_ know enough to make that decision.