I disagree. I think there should be "symmetry" -- it makes the process
clearer. If an installation results in some directories getting created,
then an uninstallation should take some responsibility for seeing that they
get uncreated. However, I think its acceptable for the uninstall to simply
Would those complaints be really due to "too many files" (ie. size issue) or
"too many files with questionable purpose"? The latter can always be fought
by being more clear about the purpose of all the files. In that sense,
having the symmetry of tools to handle both "make install" and "make
uni
TECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:19 AM
To: Masterson, David
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: FW: shall `make uninstall' remove directories?
Hello, David!
> Therefore, I think I'd suggest, as "make install" has a call
Whoops, thought this should also go to the mailing list for more general
comment.
-Original Message-
From: Masterson, David
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:25 AM
To: 'François Pinard'; Masterson, David
Subject: RE: shall `make uninstall' remove directories?
How about &q
Perhaps you're thinking of "slink"
(http://conbrio.eecs.tufts.edu/~couch/Slink/slink.html)?
-Original Message-
From: Tom Tromey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Tom Tromey; Masterson, David; 'Jean-Marc
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:45 AM
To: Masterson, David
Cc: 'Jean-Marc Lasgouttes'; Tom Tromey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Changing the name of the PACKAGE at configure time
%% "Masterson, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
md> If you want, I have a Perl too
If you want, I have a Perl tool that I picked up and enhanced called PKGLINK
that could help with this. Basically, with pkglink, you install all
packages in there own prefix directory and then use pkglink to symbolically
link the default version you want to publish into /usr/local (or someplace
s
I do it by something like:
configure --prefix=/packages/lyx/lyx-
make
make install
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 9:01 AM
To: Tom Tromey
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Changing the name of the PACKAGE at configur
I've been converting CFEngine to use Automake and have run into a few
questions that I would like to get answered:
* Does Automake assume that Info files should be part of the distribution of
a package (ie. "make dist")?
** If so, why?
** Is there a means to specify that Info files should *not* b
