Re: make install

On 06/09/17 19:45, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Wednesday, 2017-09-06 16:26:09 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
> > apparently you are trying to use "make install", which probably is
> > unused and unmaintained; maybe we should remove it.
>
> make install works fine if one configures with --prefix=..., I use it
> regulary to create installations of builds and branches before I fool
> around in a tree. Something like
>
> ./configure --prefix=$HOME/opt/$(basename `pwd`)
And what about distros like gentoo? I don't know how portage does it,
but quite likely it uses "make install" to actually install its
applications, like libreoffice, after it's built them from source?
Portage, surely, is not supposed to use /opt?

And on another little point, aren't /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (along with
/sbin) deprecated? For some value of deprecated :-) As usual, things
move at a somewhat glacial pace, but I believe all binaries are
*supposed* to be installed or symlinked into /bin now, for the unified
root or whatever it's called.

sbin was originally meant for statically linked binaries, I believe.
Typically they were emergency rescue packages for root, hence that
transmogrifying into "packages for root" rather than "static packages".
And most of the directories in /usr being equivalents to those in /,
isn't /usr deprecated for the unified root?

Cheers,
Wol