Re: [Cgdb-devel] cgdb 0.4.2 build problem

[Bob R. <bo...@br...>]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 05:33:00PM +0200, Robert Lemmen wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 11:19:51AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > OK, the "progs" directory isn't used for anything by the ordinary user.
> > All of the programs created there are driver programs for a subset of
> > the functionality of CGDB. I use them to test modules of CGDB, so that
> > bugs are easier to track down. We don't need to install them for CGDB to
> > work.
> > 
> > What does DESTDIR default to? I just want a place to put the driver
> > programs, where would be the least impact place to do this?
> 
> DESTDIR is normally empty, and should prefix installation targets so you
> can install to a different place. for example if you are not root on the
> machine you could set $DESTDIR to /home/robertle to install into your
> home directory. you could do the same by changing $prefix accordingly,
> and that is what should happen inside the makefiles. every use of
> $prefix or it's derived variables should be used together with $DESTDIR
> when installing stuff. 
> 
> i think the best place to put the progs if they are internal to the
> development process is top_bindir without the usage of $DESTDIR

OK, sorry to drag this on, so we think DESTDIR has nothing to do with
the "progs" directory. Do I have to prefix where CGDB get's installed
with it? or does that work fine?

> > My goal for the progs directory is just to have some applications I can
> > ask end users to run if CGDB isn't working for them. This allows me to
> > find bugs much faster. I don't want to install them on there machine.
> > Where would be a good place to put applications of this type?
> 
> hmm, difficult. the problem with binary distributions like debian is
> that you either have it on your machine or not. in case of cgdb it's
> easier since it is a development tool and you can expect everyone who
> uses it to be able to build stuff from source. just put it into
> top_bindir when building and we can add a note that says how to build
> the stuff in debian if one needs it to track down a bug, ok?

So to sum up, we probably don't care about the "progs" directory
for binary distributions. So, DESTDIR doesn't matter with the "progs"
directory, right? So, you suggest using top_bindir. I wonder if
top_builddir is better, because that is guarenteed to be writable. Also,
top_builddir will just put the "progs" directory in the build
directory. However top_bindir will install it into the installation
directory. Is that correct?

If it is, I would prefer to use top_builddir. If this solves the debian
problem, we can release very soon?

Does any of this make sense?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi