On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 18:36, Gérard Milmeister wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 18:17, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 10:59, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > IMO, they should not be installed to bindir (/usr/bin), because these > > > > applications are "not really useful". > > Are these binaries from code examples for some library or similar? > Yes. Most of them are coding examples for a library, very few of them > are actual "usable sample applications". > > > If yes, it might make better sense not to include the binaries, but > > only > > the source code in /usr/share/doc/<package-name>-demos-<ver> > > and make sure there is a functioning Makefile to build the binaries, > > i.e. allow the user to 'cp -a > > /usr/share/doc/<package-name>-demos-<ver> > > .' and then make. > I had considered this, but implementing this would require substantial > effort (The package uses a bizarre and complex GNUmakefile system and > supports building the example code only as part of the complete > source-tree.) > > Meanwhile I have checked what Debian does with this particular package: > * They do not ship the coding examples > * They install the sample-applications to /usr/lib/<package> My +1 for /usr/lib/<package> in general for small demo applications, depending on the case /usr/bin can be ok as well if the demos are in separate package. I'd still put the coding examples to -devel package under documentation, doesn't matter if it compiles there or not, it's often useful just to see some sample code for a given library even if you can't compile it where it is. - Panu -
