$HOME/lib/pike/modules $HOME/pike/modules
I think $HOME/pike-modules would be ok. It shouldn't be several directory levels, at least; in 95% of the cases it'd only be extra steps one would have to go through.
on OSX, every user gets $HOME/Library, so perhaps the best place isn't the same for each system...
Maybe not, but a standard place regardless of platform is clearly useful otoh. Would there be a tangible benefit placing it in that directory on OS-X?
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-10-30 18:10: Subject: Re: module build process
It would still be convenient, and it would help enforce some kind of de-facto standard location for locally installed modules, so that one reasonably can assume that it's, say, $HOME/pike-modules and not $HOME/pike/local_modules or $HOME/PikeStuff or whatever. If nothing else, it's useful to have a common term to talk about.
ok. you have convinced me of the folly of my ways :) what do you think the recommended local location should be?
$HOME/lib/pike/modules $HOME/pike/modules
on OSX, every user gets $HOME/Library, so perhaps the best place isn't the same for each system...
The same way Tools.Standalone.module finds out the include directory. I.e. you should extend the master to store lib_prefix in a separate variable. Preferably it should be possible to query it too with pike -x module.
ok. i'll look into that.
I see there's a share_prefix too which is intended for architecture independent data, i.e. undumped modules. Can't find any installation method that installs there, though.
at one point, weren't compiled modules and pure pike files kept in separate locations?
Bill
/ Brevbäraren