Re: [Nmh-workers] 1.7's `make clean' is Overzealous.

[David Levine]

Ken wrote:

> Weeell, I was talking about sysconfdir.

Where do the GNU coding standards say not to put stuff in our own
directory for sysconfdir?  I don't see anything under the
sysconfdir description itself:  certainly no indication that it's
wrong.  In contrast, see the quote that Ralph has posted.

> We can't re-litigate decisions?  Since when?

I did not say we can't.  It would make for a more complex discussion
in this case.

> Like I said, I only have a beef with sysconfdir; I'm fine with a
> hardcoded appending for libexecdir.

Different support for libexecdir and sysconfdir is confusing, I
think.  And I see no reason for it.

> I understand their point, but we could say the same thing about
> $(bindir)

No, users need direct access to $bindir by default.  Not
$bindir/pkg, unless they want to configure that.

> I guess my real question is ... should this decision be made by
> a packaging system, or should we enforce it always?

I don't see why sysconfdir should be any different than libexecdir.
Again, the GNU coding standards don't say that packages can't
add their name to sysconfdir.  They do say:

    Do not expect the user to include the subdirectory name in the
    value of any of the variables listed above.

As far as not being able to easily override that, there is precedent
in other packages.

David