[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: improve INSTALL contents
From: |
Alfred M. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: improve INSTALL contents |
Date: |
Wed, 13 May 2009 09:51:42 -0400 |
> +Depending on the package, the default directory layout chosen during
> address@hidden can be altered during subsequent execution of
> address@hidden
>
> A `make install FOO=VAL' should never alter anything in the build
> directory. The problem is if you pass --bindir=/foo to configure, and
> then do `make install prefix=/bar', the files installed in bindir will
> be installed in /foo, and not /bar as the user might have exepcted;
> this is why passing prefix to `make install' is a bad idea.
Agreed - which is why I went on to say this in the same paragraph:
+However, some programs need to know at
+compile time where files will be installed, so the user should ensure
+that the same directory choice is made for both @samp{make all} and
address@hidden install}.
Any suggestions on how to improve the wording to make this point
more explicit?
I will try to think of something--please give me a day or two, I don't
like the current wording since it indirectly contradicts the GCS, and
is very unclear.
Thanks for mentioning V=0 and --disable-silent-rules, I didn't know
about that!
- improve INSTALL contents (was: Core-utils 7.2; building only 'su'), Eric Blake, 2009/05/13
- Re: improve INSTALL contents (was: Core-utils 7.2; building only 'su'), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/05/13
- Re: improve INSTALL contents (was: Core-utils 7.2; building only 'su'), Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/13
- Re: improve INSTALL contents (was: Core-utils 7.2; building only 'su'), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/05/14
- Re: improve INSTALL contents, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/05/17
- Re: improve INSTALL contents, Ralf Wildenhues, 2009/05/17
- Re: improve INSTALL contents, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/05/17