right way to compile wine with a "buildroot" DESTDIR is missing

[Raul Dias]

Hi,

I have been building wine RPMs for some time now.

The way I do is to specify the correct paths to ./configure
script (like prefix, mandir, bindir, ...).

After building I have to use an ugly make install
in orther to install it into another dir that is different
from the one.

However, talking to some wine developers on #winehq 
in openprojects network.
They state that a 
./configure --prefix=<you buildroot>/prefix

was enough.
That's because wine does not hardcode any %prefix related path.
This would simplify a lot the process.

However I just checked that wine does hardcode the %prefix
dir in the binaries.

This is done in dlls/ntdll/ntdll.dll.so and possible at 
miscemu/wine .

AFAIU, this is done to keep the path to the global registries
which is the Right Thing to do.

So what I really would like to know is
which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?

Is there any chance to get a DESTDIR implemented in the Makefiles?

[]'s
Raul Dias

[Alexandre Julliard]

Raul Dias  writes:
> After building I have to use an ugly make install
> in orther to install it into another dir that is different
> from the one.

What's so ugly about that make install?  Could you show us the
commands you are using?
> So what I really would like to know is
> which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
> than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?

The right way is to run configure with the final prefix, run make, and
then run make install with the prefix set to the package build
location.
> Is there any chance to get a DESTDIR implemented in the Makefiles?

Sure, if there is a good reason for it.

[Raul Dias]

Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> Raul Dias  writes:
> > After building I have to use an ugly make install
> > in orther to install it into another dir that is different
> > from the one.
>
> What's so ugly about that make install?  Could you show us the
> commands you are using?

make 	\
  prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \
  bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir}	\
  libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
  mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \
  dlldir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} \
  includedir=%{buildroot}/%{_includedir}/%{name} \
  datadir=%{buildroot}/%{_datadir} \
  LDCONFIG=/bin/true \
  install

just notice that I build as a non-root user.
%{...} are macros expanded to path names.
> > So what I really would like to know is
> > which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
> > than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?
>
> The right way is to run configure with the final prefix, run make, and
> then run make install with the prefix set to the package build
> location.

just setting the prefix in the make install won't work.
> > Is there any chance to get a DESTDIR implemented in the Makefiles?
>
> Sure, if there is a good reason for it.

I hope that this is :)

[]'s
Raul Dias

[Ove Kaaven]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > So what I really would like to know is
> > > which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
> > > than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?
> >
> > The right way is to run configure with the final prefix, run make, and
> > then run make install with the prefix set to the package build
> > location.
>
> just setting the prefix in the make install won't work.

It works for my Debian packages with just prefix and libdir:

$(MAKE) install prefix=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr libdir=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr/lib

[Raul Dias]

Ove Kaaven  wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote:
> > Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> > > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > > So what I really would like to know is
> > > > which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
> > > > than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?
> > >
> > > The right way is to run configure with the final prefix, run make, and
> > > then run make install with the prefix set to the package build
> > > location.
> >
> > just setting the prefix in the make install won't work.
>
> It works for my Debian packages with just prefix and libdir:
>
> $(MAKE) install prefix=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr libdir=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr/lib

Are you sure?
here I get:

[chaos@speedy wine-20020804]$ make prefix=/var/tmp/wine_root/usr libdir=/var/tmp/wine_root/usr/lib install

cd `dirname include/__install__` && make install
make[1]: Entering directory `/chaos/rpm/BUILD/wine-20020804/include'
../tools/mkinstalldirs /usr/include/wine/wine /usr/include/wine/wine/wine /usr/include/wine/wine/msvcrt /usr/include/wine/wine/msvcrt/sys
mkdir -p -- /usr/include/wine/wine/wine /usr/include/wine/wine/msvcrt /usr/include/wine/wine/msvcrt/sys
mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/include/wine/wine/wine': Permiss�o negada
mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/include/wine/wine/msvcrt': Permiss�o negada
mkdir: cannot create directory `/usr/include/wine/wine/msvcrt': Permiss�o negada
make[1]: *** [install] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/chaos/rpm/BUILD/wine-20020804/include'
make: *** [include/__install__] Error 2

Please not that if this has being done as root, the problem wouldn't be notices 
(as root may write in /usr/include).

[Ove Kaaven]

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote:
> Ove Kaaven  wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote:
> > > Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> > > > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > > > So what I really would like to know is
> > > > > which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
> > > > > than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?
> > > >
> > > > The right way is to run configure with the final prefix, run make, and
> > > > then run make install with the prefix set to the package build
> > > > location.
> > >
> > > just setting the prefix in the make install won't work.
> >
> > It works for my Debian packages with just prefix and libdir:
> >
> > $(MAKE) install prefix=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr libdir=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr/lib
>
> Are you sure?

OK, perhaps it has something to do with my configure invocation.

CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" ./configure --with-x --enable-opengl --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
--libdir=$${prefix}/lib --mandir=$${prefix}/share/man --infodir=$${prefix}/share/info

[Raul Dias]

Ove Kaaven  wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote:
> > Ove Kaaven  wrote:
> > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote:
> > > > Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> > > > > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > > > > So what I really would like to know is
> > > > > > which way is the right way to install wine in a dir different
> > > > > > than %prefix or /usr/local (default %prefix)?
> > > > >
> > > > > The right way is to run configure with the final prefix, run make, and
> > > > > then run make install with the prefix set to the package build
> > > > > location.
> > > >
> > > > just setting the prefix in the make install won't work.
> > >
> > > It works for my Debian packages with just prefix and libdir:
> > >
> > > $(MAKE) install prefix=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr libdir=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr/lib
> >
> > Are you sure?
>
> OK, perhaps it has something to do with my configure invocation.
>
> CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" ./configure --with-x --enable-opengl --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
> --libdir=$${prefix}/lib --mandir=$${prefix}/share/man --infodir=$${prefix}/share/info

That's it!

configure is called with rpm location macros as:

./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} and so on

that is expanded to:

./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib ....

In turn this variables won't rely on ${prefix} in Makefile.

Actually, this is the desirable situation in rpm as to change a path,
you just have to change the macro without reworking the specfile.

This is also the reason why most application does have a DESTDIR variable
in the makefiles.  This way they don't have to rely on the prefix variable
to install on different location.

Alexandre,
Do you think this reason is good enough to consider DESTDIR support in wine?

[]'s
Raul Dias

[Alexandre Julliard]

Raul Dias  writes:
> configure is called with rpm location macros as:
>
> ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} and so on
>
> that is expanded to:
>
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib ....
>
> In turn this variables won't rely on ${prefix} in Makefile.

But %{_libdir} should expand to ${prefix}/lib, not /usr/lib. Otherwise
you can't change prefix and have it do anything useful. Is this
something you can fix, or are the _libdir etc. macros hardcoded?

[Vincent Béron]

Le jeu 15/08/2002 à 15:14, Alexandre Julliard a écrit :
> Raul Dias  writes:
> > configure is called with rpm location macros as:
> >
> > ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} and so on
> >
> > that is expanded to:
> >
> > ./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib ....
> >
> > In turn this variables won't rely on ${prefix} in Makefile.
>
> But %{_libdir} should expand to ${prefix}/lib, not /usr/lib. Otherwise
> you can't change prefix and have it do anything useful. Is this
> something you can fix, or are the _libdir etc. macros hardcoded?

They're not hardcoded (at least on my system, RH7.3 with
rpm-4.0.4-7x.18). In fact, they are defined in
/usr/lib/rpm/(arch)-linux/macros, and except for _sysconfdir,
_localstatedir et _oldincludedir, they all rely on other macros to
update themselves should you choose another _prefix.

Raul, another way you could install while doing the RPM is via the
%makeinstall macro rather than a manual "make install". Same thing
applies to %configure vs "./configure". All the dirs are already given,
and as a bonus, your spec file will be smaller and more easily
manageable.

FYI, the format of the directory passing of the %makeinstall macro is 
make prefix=%(?buildroot:%{buildroot}}%{_prefix} ... install,
which is close to what you had originally.

I believe using those %configure and %makeinstall macros are the proper
way to use rpm nowadays.

Vincent

[Raul Dias]

hi Vicent,

Vincent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=E9ron?=  wrote:
> Le jeu 15/08/2002 � 15:14, Alexandre Julliard a �crit :
> > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > configure is called with rpm location macros as:
> > >
> > > ./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} and so on
> > >
> > > that is expanded to:
> > >
> > > ./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib ....
> > >
> > > In turn this variables won't rely on ${prefix} in Makefile.
> >
> > But %{_libdir} should expand to ${prefix}/lib, not /usr/lib. Otherwise
> > you can't change prefix and have it do anything useful. Is this
> > something you can fix, or are the _libdir etc. macros hardcoded?
>
> They're not hardcoded (at least on my system, RH7.3 with
> rpm-4.0.4-7x.18). In fact, they are defined in
> /usr/lib/rpm/(arch)-linux/macros, and except for _sysconfdir,
> _localstatedir et _oldincludedir, they all rely on other macros to
> update themselves should you choose another _prefix.

right.
> Raul, another way you could install while doing the RPM is via the
> %makeinstall macro rather than a manual "make install". Same thing
> applies to %configure vs "./configure". All the dirs are already given,
> and as a bonus, your spec file will be smaller and more easily
> manageable.

Would be it, but %makeinstall does not handle dlldir.
> FYI, the format of the directory passing of the %makeinstall macro is 
> make prefix=%(?buildroot:%{buildroot}}%{_prefix} ... install,
> which is close to what you had originally.
>
> I believe using those %configure and %makeinstall macros are the proper
> way to use rpm nowadays.

true.

But changing them for every app is not the Right Thing.
What I want to show is that other applications solve this
very problem by using DESTDIR.

%configure and %makeinstall is fresh in rpm world (about 2 years).

[]'s
Raul Dias
> Vincent

[Alexandre Julliard]

Raul Dias  writes:
> > I believe using those %configure and %makeinstall macros are the proper
> > way to use rpm nowadays.
>
> true.
>
> But changing them for every app is not the Right Thing.
> What I want to show is that other applications solve this
> very problem by using DESTDIR.

But there is no problem to solve AFAICS. I haven't seen anything yet
that you can do with DESTDIR that you cannot do with the existing
prefix mechanism. The only real problem is that the rpm macros
apparently break the prefix stuff; but then it's the responsibility of
the rpm tools to provide a work around (which is what %makeinstall is).

[Vincent Béron]

Le mer 14/08/2002 à 18:47, Raul Dias a écrit :
> Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > After building I have to use an ugly make install
> > > in orther to install it into another dir that is different
> > > from the one.
> >
> > What's so ugly about that make install?  Could you show us the
> > commands you are using?
>
> make 	\
>   prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \
>   bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir}	\
>   libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
>   mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \
>   dlldir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} \
>   includedir=%{buildroot}/%{_includedir}/%{name} \
>   datadir=%{buildroot}/%{_datadir} \
>   LDCONFIG=/bin/true \
>   install
>
> just notice that I build as a non-root user.
> %{...} are macros expanded to path names.

The paths for prefix, bindir, libdir, mandir and dlldir don't have a
slash between the $(buildroot) and %(_somethingelse) parts, while the
includedir and datadir do.
Could you check which one is the right way to go? (Or if it doesn't
change anything?)

Else, from an old (20020614) install log that I had laying around, you
seem to have covered all the necessary directories. In addition to what
I already said, you can also define exec_prefix (default is same thing
as prefix), infodir ($(prefix)/info) and sysconfdir ($(prefix)/etc).

Question regarding the installation process: in the Makefiles, all the
directories (except prefix) are defined wrt prefix. Shouldn't setting
prefix at installation time should be enough then?

Answer: yes, setting only prefix= at installation time works (at least
with the 20020614 source I had), and all the other directories under it
are created correctly. Maybe something changed since then in the
installation process.

Vincent

[Raul Dias]

Vincent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=E9ron?=  wrote:
> Le mer 14/08/2002 � 18:47, Raul Dias a �crit :
> > Alexandre Julliard  wrote:
> > > Raul Dias  writes:
> > > > After building I have to use an ugly make install
> > > > in orther to install it into another dir that is different
> > > > from the one.
> > >
> > > What's so ugly about that make install?  Could you show us the
> > > commands you are using?
> >
> > make 	\
> >   prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \
> >   bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir}	\
> >   libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \
> >   mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \
> >   dlldir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name} \
> >   includedir=%{buildroot}/%{_includedir}/%{name} \
> >   datadir=%{buildroot}/%{_datadir} \
> >   LDCONFIG=/bin/true \
> >   install
> >
> > just notice that I build as a non-root user.
> > %{...} are macros expanded to path names.
>
> The paths for prefix, bindir, libdir, mandir and dlldir don't have a
> slash between the $(buildroot) and %(_somethingelse) parts, while the
> includedir and datadir do.
> Could you check which one is the right way to go? (Or if it doesn't
> change anything?)

the %{_macros} does have the / in the beginning.
> Else, from an old (20020614) install log that I had laying around, you
> seem to have covered all the necessary directories. In addition to what
> I already said, you can also define exec_prefix (default is same thing
> as prefix), infodir ($(prefix)/info) and sysconfdir ($(prefix)/etc).

the ones above are the necessary ones, at least for now.
I know this by doing a "make install" and adding the ones needed as error
shows up (like the includedir one).
> Question regarding the installation process: in the Makefiles, all the
> directories (except prefix) are defined wrt prefix. Shouldn't setting
> prefix at installation time should be enough then?

Not for me at least.
Here is how things are in my Makefile:

[chaos@speedy wine-20020804]$ grep dlldir Makefile -B 9
prefix          = /usr
exec_prefix     = /usr
bindir          = /usr/bin
libdir          = /usr/lib
datadir         = /usr/share
infodir         = /usr/share/info
mandir          = /usr/share/man
sysconfdir      = /etc/wine
includedir      = /usr/include/wine/wine
dlldir          = /usr/lib/wine
> Answer: yes, setting only prefix= at installation time works (at least
> with the 20020614 source I had), and all the other directories under it
> are created correctly. Maybe something changed since then in the
> installation process.

as I showed before, it doesn't (at least for me).

[]'s
Raul Dias