Any interest in a 'install' target for make?

  • srhuston
  • Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Fresh Boarder
More
8 months 1 week ago #7071 by srhuston
I notice that 'make all' builds the utils and the server binary directly to '../bin'; one thing that I realized, but inexperienced types might not, is that this means the lib directory shipped in the tarball becomes where this specific mud's data will be stored. If someone were to unpack a new version of the code, or do a 'git pull' without paying attention to any merge conflicts, it's possible other changes in the distributed rooms/objects/triggers/etc would be overwritten. Would there be any interest in a proper install target to 'make', using the prefix passed from configure? I've got some ideas of how to do it, but figured I'd ask before performing the logic and setting up a pull request. No hard feelings if the answer is no.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 1 week ago #7080 by thomas
A very good idea, indeed. I have thought about the same issues. One thing to consider is that on first install, you will want to copy all lib files.

A pull request would be welcome :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.676 seconds