Re: Opinions on filesystem mount

Andrew Valencia writes:
> [larz@world.std.com (Mike A Larson) writes:]
>
> >>Can you tell me in what way it makes writing makefiles easier?
> >The absolute path names are the same so for both DOS and VSTa. Thus:
> > LDFLAGS = -L/libc -L/lib
> >Works for both DOS and VSTa.
>
> Couple issues mixed in here. When building from a source tree, you almost
> always want the source tree to use relative paths, so you can have multiple
> source trees, or do something weird in a source tree without impacting the
> "regular" tools. Thus, within the VSTa source I hope always to have things
> like -L../../libc and never an absolute path.
>

What I would suggest here, based on the work we did in developing big
systems with many variants, is to use paths relative to a moveable
root, i.e. something that can be represented by an environment
variable. If the top of the source tree is VSTAROOT, then the
libraries can be at $VSTAROOT/libc, and so on. We found that this
gave us the flexibility of relative paths, and the "safety" of
absolute paths.

> This leaves the question of where to place the "installed" binaries. Using
> the /lib and /bin paths can easily clash with other DOS C compiler
> environments. What if I added "make install" targets to the makefiles and
> placed the results in /vsta/lib and /vsta/bin (and /vsta/etc)? This would
> keep all the VSTa files (source, binary, and random support text files like
> the password file) within the single DOS directory /vsta, which seems tidier
> and less likely to clash with other DOS programs.
>
> Andy

You can do the same thing for binaries, putting them at a standard
place under the root of the tree, with "install" targets that will
move them from there to the proper place to be found in the running
system.

doug
Received on Tue Apr 5 22:24:30 1994