Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:26:22 -0500
From:      "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com>
To:        ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Installing executables with generic names
Message-ID:  <4F3A60FE.7050009@aldan.algebra.com>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello!

I'm preparing a new port (net/udt), which installs a library with its 
header file and a handful of sample applications.

The applications are rather generically named: sendfile, recvfile, 
test... Having them in ${PREFIX}/bin
like that would be confusing.

I see two alternatives:

  * use a port-specific prefix for each binary: udt-sendfile,
    udt-recvfile, udt-test, etc.
    or
  * use a port-specific subdirectory: ${PREFIX}/bin/udt/ (lua seems to
    do this)

The first is simpler for me, but might be a trouble for anyone porting a 
script in the future, which calls the binaries by their generic name...

Opinions? Thanks! Yours,

    -mi




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3A60FE.7050009>