Any interest in a 'install' target for make?
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.
Replied by thomas on topic Any interest in a 'install' target for make?
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.