Branches
Comments
[»]
oh, btw..
by rj bertsche - Jul 4th 1999 22:57:53
as far as the gnu stow question earlier, go look at the page.
encap's copyright predates it. encap's copyright predates freshmeat
itself.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
My installation procedure
by Claudio Matsuoka - Jun 14th 1999 16:09:16
I'm installing packages under /opt/package-version (using ./configure
--prefix=/opt/package-version), symlinking the directory to /opt/package
and then symlinking the files to /usr/local (to have them in $PATH ). So
foobar 3.0 binaries are installed under /opt/foobar-3.0/bin, /opt/foobar is
a symlink to /opt/foobar-3.0, and /usr/local/bin/foobar is a link to
/opt/foobar/bin/foobar. When foobar 3.1 is released, I can just install it
under /opt/foobar-3.1 and change /opt/foobar to point to it, and links in
/usr/local are automatically updated. To uninstall, just nuke the directory
from /opt and remove dangling links from /usr/local. Sounds messy, but it
works quite well.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: My installation procedure
by dbt - Apr 23rd 2001 19:13:59
That's an pretty common method of ad hoc management, but it falls short on
a couple counts. Pretty much any time filenames change, for example --
shared libraries, new/renamed binaries, etc.
Check out EPKG. Basically, move your /opt tree to /usr/local/encap,
remove the package name symlinks (leave foo-3.1 but delete foo), and run
epkg on it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
gnu stow? ech.
by rj bertsche - Jun 14th 1999 11:35:55
except that the last time i checked, gnu stow didn't handle forced link
removal nearly as nice as encap does. encap is robust enough to deal with
most of the stuff gnu stow just chokes on.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Kinda looks a lot like GNU stow...
by Necronom IV - Apr 4th 1999 11:56:06
I haven't had a chance to look at this software, but from the description,
it does exactly what GNU stow does.
[reply]
[top]
|
