Tom Tromey wrote:
> The idea behind DOCUMENTATION is to provide a way to install README
> and the other stuff that ends up (eg) in /usr/doc/$PACKAGE.
Just a note, I believe the RedHat standard is /usr/share/doc now.
Derek
--
Derek Price CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVS
> "Michael" == Michael Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> lib_LIBRARIES = libfoo.a
>> devel_header_HEADERS = foo/foo.h
Michael> Why don;t you just have some different primaries? Like, for
Michael> instance:
Michael> rpm_PROGRAMS = foo
Michael> foo_SOURCES = foo.c wibble.c hamster.c
This
> "Ganesan" == Ganesan Rajagopal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ganesan> I have been thinking about this too. Installable objects
Ganesan> should have a package prefix. We can also have a global
Ganesan> variable called PACKAGES or something like that, so that
Ganesan> automake can generate inst
On 13 Jan 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2001, Michael Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why don;t you just have some different primaries?
>
> The issue is not about having different programs depending on the
> packaging tool. It's about creating multiple binary packages, with
>
On Jan 12, 2001, Michael Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> The automake-related idea I had was that installable objects would be
>> marked by the sub-package they belong to. Something like:
>> lib_LIBRARIES = libfoo.a
>> devel_header_HEADERS = foo/foo.h
>
On 12 Jan 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I do think it would be useful. However it seems that most package
> maintainers are not also the package developers. And, most package
> maintainers only develop for a single platform.
I'm not sure this is true... I know for the software I write, I also
crea
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway I think the big problem is sub-package breakdown. Maybe this
> is solveable. I'm willing to put patches into automake that help with
> `autopackage'.
> The automake-related idea I had was that installable objects would be
> marked
> "Rusty" == Rusty Ballinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rusty> - As a developer who builds & distributes packages, I'd love a
Rusty> tool which abstracts platform-specific packaging, the same way
Rusty> autoconf & automake abstract platform-specific building. I
Rusty> don't want to become a
> There were two reasons I stopped doing this.
>
> One reason is that it isn't clear that this is needed. At least the
> Debian and RPM communities have already solved these problems to their
> satisfaction.
I disagree in two ways:
- As a developer who builds & distributes packages, I'd love a
> "Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Wossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Geoffrey> Seeing as how packaging support doesn't seem to be here yet,
Geoffrey> I would like to work on it.
Geoffrey> 1) Is my evalution of automake's current lack of package
Geoffrey> support correct?
Yes.
Geoffrey> 2) Would it
10 matches
Mail list logo
