Why would it matter? As far as I know (which isn't far), the --prefix is only
used for the install scripts to know where to put the finished product, and
for the linker to know where the lib directory is. Defining your
LD_LIBRARY_PATH to point to $home/lib would let the binaries pick up on where
the libs are when you run them, right? Otherwise, all programs you download
off the 'net would have to be put in /usr/local/bin, or /usr/bin, or the
equiv (wherever the original compiler put them). But that isn't the case (I
can move stuff from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin and back with impunity). It's
just a case of letting the bins know where the libs are, and that can be
taken care of by the LD..PATH variable. Hrrm, I'm starting to ramble :-)
Incipient signs of about-to-go-home-ism ;-)
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:38:20 -0800 (PST), Ben Rockwood said:
> I think I know what your getting at... in my experience (I could be wrong,
> but..) when you specify a --prefix=$HOME, that will be resolved to the
> absolute path in the process.... which means that if you pick up the dir
> tree from /home/benr and move it to /home/david, you're still gonna break
> cause $HOME was resolved in the make process to /home/benr where it was
> built. I've tried hacking out Makefiles to keep from resolving, but
> ultimately the paths get resolved at some point.
> Can someone confirm this? This is my personal experience, and if I'm wrong
> (which I hope I am) I need a firm explanation the other way.
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:52:20 -0800 (PST), Ben Rockwood said:
> >> > This is quite good.
> >> > For people on Solaris who don't want to compile source, it's quite
> >> > nice to be able to download binaries and try. Often, they don't
> >> > have root access, so, will it be possible for them to install the
> >> > packages ?
> >> No. This seems to be a common problem, but more so for "corp users"
> >> than your average Linux or BSD buff.... they don't have root passwds
> >> half the time. This is a problem for all platforms that use pkgs or
> >> rpms. Another similar problem I see is users that want E but want
> >> to install in /opt or /export because some idiot turned /usr/local
> >> intot a mount point. I'm trying to find ways around these problems,
> >> but I've yet to find a good solid method for installing
> >> binaries/libraries in a location un-specific way. I tried
> >> distributing tars of the bins and libs, but all kinds of problems
> >> came up. I tried fixing all the issues on a per-problem basis to
> >> build a fix script to make it all work, but that didn't pan out
> >> either. So at this point, you really are forced to either have root,
> >> or build yourself. If anyone has ideas I'm open to 'em.
> > This is my ignorance showing, but I got almost all of it done simply by
> > compiling stuff into my home directory (--prefix=$HOME) and putting
> > $HOME/lib in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Why would binaries that drop into your
> > home directory, along with instructions on how to set your LD path be
> > different? Or, to put another way, why is my compiling and loading
> > that way different from you compiling and loading that way?
> > Thanks,
> > D.A.Bishop
> > _______________________________________________
> > Enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > Enlightenment-devel@...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel