[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: standards for info install
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: standards for info install |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:09:59 GMT |
Hi Aubrey, Ralf,
agj> oops -- I meant installdirs; I have changed it in my Makefiles.
I think you are right, a dependency on installdirs would be good in the
make-stds example. Thanks.
I took a look at guile-1.9.7/doc/ref/Makefile for an example
Yes, the Automake-generated code is complex. That's why we don't want
to use it verbatim as an example in make-stds.
FWIW, the rules you wrote for yourself seem basically fine to me.
rw> What do you conclude that from? The file is looked for in the
build directory first, and only then in the source directory.
I think Aubrey is saying that it's possible that a newer version would
be in the source directory, yet the rules (both make-stds's and
automake's) would install the version in the build directory.
I think that's true, in theory. But in practice, the only time the
build directory gets found is when it is being used for, well, the
build, so it's not a problem.
Thanks,
karl
- standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/10
- Re: standards for info install, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/02/11
- Re: standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/11
- Re: standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/18
- Re: standards for info install, Aubrey Jaffer, 2010/02/19
- Re: standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/18
- Re: standards for info install, Aubrey Jaffer, 2010/02/20
- Re: standards for info install, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/02/21
- Re: standards for info install,
Karl Berry <=