Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!mcsun!unido!logixwi!jpm
From: jpm@logixwi.uucp (Jan-Piet Mens @ Logix GmbH, Wiesbaden)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Using ".." in Scripts & Makefiles
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.085711.6123@logixwi.uucp>
Date: 28 Mar 91 08:57:11 GMT
References: <1991Mar26.201509.5048@intelhf.hf.intel.com>
Reply-To: jpm@logixwi.UUCP (Jan-Piet Mens)
Organization: Logix GmbH, Wiesbaden, W-Germany
Lines: 28

In article <1991Mar26.201509.5048@intelhf.hf.intel.com> marko@hutch (Mark O'Shea) writes:
>I am resposible for upgrading a set of test suites which have some scripts
>and makefiles that do things like:
>   HOME=..
>or
>   cd ../../
>
>etc.
>
>Now I know that they will work, but I am instinctively uncomfortable with
>them.  I personally believe that spelling out the path names is a better
>practice.
>

I don't agree. I also (if I must do it) use the '..' business. 
If you have to move the base directory of your package to somewhere 
else in the file-system, you will have to modify all the absolute 
pathnames !!!.

Why not use -I.. for includes for example, or define absolute pathnames
in Makefiles, etc.

Regards,
	JP

-- 
Jan-Piet Mens, Logix GmbH				    jpm@logixwi.UUCP
Moritzstr. 50, D-6200 Wiesbaden            ...!uunet!mcsun!unido!logixwi!jpm