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>