On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Karl Berry wrote: > > The obvious directory would be $(datadir)/html by analogy with > $(datadir)/info, but it seems a bit arrogant to use such a generic name > for something which only relates to Texinfo manuals. Maybe texinfo/html > -- then we could have texinfo/xml/ and texinfo/docbook/ and ..., if we > liked. Thus: > texinfodata = $(datadir)/texinfo > texinfohtml = $(texinfodata)/html
Seems fine to me. > Also, I'm not sure if make all should make them and make install should > install them by default. I'm inclined to say no, because including the > HTML in the distributions (which would be the implication) seems like a > lot of bloat, and I haven't exactly been flooded with complaints on the > subject. Alexandre suggested separate make [un]install-texinfohtml > targets, which sounds fine to me. I am against having separate install targets because GNU makefiles normally install everything by default and that is what users should expect. Installing everything is not a problem for distribution maintainers since they decide which files to package using their distribution tools. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
