[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: autoconf/automake: handling the installation of desktop files / icon

From: Christopher Howard
Subject: Re: autoconf/automake: handling the installation of desktop files / icons
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 22:31:26 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120402 Thunderbird/11.0.1

On 04/06/2012 02:58 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> I think you're going above and beyond the call of duty.  ;-)
> However, IMO, it's impossible to account for all the various packaging
> schemes at the source distribution level.  In the project I work with,
> the source tarball installs to "standard" directories under /usr/local.
> After that it is up to the package maintainer of a given distribution to
> customize the installation for their binary package management.
> Otherwise I think one will go insane or at least set themselves up for a
> lot of extra, thankless work trying to chase even the most popular
> packaging formats.
> - Nate >>

Thanks. Actually, early today I decided the most sensible thing to do
would be to just /not/ have the desktop/icon files installed by the
source, but rather to just package them with the source and leave the
installation to the distros. I found out upon further research that
putting static files in a static location is not a hard thing for
package managers to do. Gentoo has functions specifically for installing
menu files and icons, and for a Debian package its a simple do_install
call. Furthermore, if I tried to wrap it in make install, this would
cause additional problems, because then people would have to have root
privileges in order to install, since the proper /usr/share locations
are usually root owned.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]