Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: CF: Crossfire Installation

-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Elsbernd
Sent: 9/8/99 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: CF: Crossfire Installation 

I install crossfire from the early days on (since version 0.5*) and I'm
very pleased with the current installation scheme. I'm not willing (and for
security reasons cannot allow) binary distributions of crossfire. I will
only compile and install it in the way my directory structure allows.
I use the same configure command on NetBSD, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris and SunOS
(well, crossfire is my reference program which I compile after installing
the machines) I'm using
	./configure  --prefix=/opt/games --localstatedir=/var/opt --with-x
You and a great many other administrators adhere to the same sentiment:
binary distribution is a security risk.  I can certainly see your point, and
neither I nor Mark are suggesting doing away with the current source code
distribution.  It's our opinion that a binary distribution is convenient and
should be an available option, that's all.

If I'm not mistaken, the options you are using are specified in the
filesystem organizational standard of at least some of those OS's you
mention.  And they are NOT where Crossfire normally installs itself.  So my
point stands.
And I don't think that *nix Filesystem Hierachy is a mess. It's clearly
structured, if you only follow the guidelines of modern *nix-systems.
linux has a lot more problems structuring the systems, than the ones I
mentioned above. Especially, if you compare the different distributions
out there.
Perhaps I was being overbroad saying *nix, rather than specifying Linux.
Sun has had a defined Hierarchy for quite some time, as has HP.  However,
System V-based *nix's and BSD-based *nix's have always had conflicting ideas
about that subject.  Linux has merely brought the issue to a head, since it
attempts to cater to both crowds.
(no flame war please)
I do not "flame."  Resorting to personal attacks and offensive language in a
discussion is for small minds.  Kindly give me a LITTLE credit.  :P
autoconf does a good job.  The same I do by hand, when it's not
available. said:
> <hauls out the soap box> The *nix Filesystem Hierarchy as it has
> developed over the last two decades is a god-aweful mess, and the
> difficulty of *nix software installation is a joke of cosmic
> proportions.  *nix has existed in something like its current form for
> 20 years or so, and installation of software under it has barely
> changed since the first day.  That's ridiculous.  (Praise be unto GNU
> autoconf, however.)  The FHS is an attempt to bring a little sanity
> into an insane OS, and as developers, I think it's encumbent upon us
> to do our part, however small. <kicks soap box back under desk> 
I think installing on m$ System is a lot more ridiculous. Installing
on my *nix-machines is like
	./configure --prefix
	make install
(thanks to Mark for that easy way)
You think that way because you are a highly experienced *nix system
administrator.  Consequently, your perceptions are distorted.  The familiar
is always easy.  You find specifying two or three or four command-line
installation path options to configure welcome and familiar.  This is
because you have developed very firm opinions on where software should be
installed.  You are very decidedly in the minority in that sentiment,
however.  NOT specifying any options and having it install in sane locations
is exactly what "M$" systems do, and though you evidently don't see it that
way, it's easier.  It is especially easier to those new to *nix, and like it
or not, there are always new users.  Wouldn't you rather encourage habits of
consistency and sane filesystems in those new users?

And again, I'm not proposing elimination of the command-line installation
options, precisely because I'm aware there are people like you.  You know
exactly what you're doing, and there is no reason to severely restrict your
options.  This isn't Macintosh software.  :)  There are good reasons to
change the defaults though.  

Bearing in mind the BSD vs. SVR4 filesystem hierarchy debate, I might go so
far as to modify my proposal.  Perhaps the autoconf script should set "sane"
defaults based on the variant of *nix it finds itself on, i.e. /opt for
Suns, /usr/local for Linux, etc.  Personally, I think conforming to the FHS
on all platforms is preferable.  Crushing the BSD vs. SVR4 filesystem
hierarchy debate once and for all strikes me as a good thing, and Linux may
have enough momentum to carry it off.  The fledglings who are installing
Linux today are the Unix System Administrators of tomorrow.  If we can do
our small part to bias them towards a unified Hierarchy Standard, I'm all
for it.

[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to]