kenj wrote:
> [...]
> You're already in unchartered water here ... I've never tested the
> --prefix=... option for a build and would not be surprised if this has
> problems.
>
> I don't think this should be necessary, nor should it be attempted
> ... the PCP QA suite is designed with a philosophy that it is trying
> to exercise the code in a context that is as close as possible to that
> which an end-user would experience. [...]
For the record, --prefix is not incompatible with end-user experience.
We added --prefix to the configury specifically because there was a
use-case for installing and running pcp out of a non-core-os
subdirectory. And it worked fine, including /etc/rc.d files that
redirected to the $prefix/bin programs. I believe we ran pcpqa that
way too.
There were only a few configuration prereqs like putting $prefix/bin
into the $PATH (ahead of any conflicting system copy). For
pcp-libs-devel purposes, an end-user $CFLAGS would have to include
-I$prefix/include, etc. - something we could automate with
http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1095 .
Embracing --prefix more could also pave the way for letting pcpqa run
on normal workstations, with much less disruption to the system, thus
making it more pleasant to be run frequently.
- FChE
|