automake
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: automake 1.4g: About `make install-strip'


From: Tom Tromey
Subject: Re: automake 1.4g: About `make install-strip'
Date: 26 May 2001 00:02:31 -0600

>>>>> "Maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki <address@hidden> writes:

Maciej> INSTALL_PROGRAM='${INSTALL} -s' ./configure
Maciej> make
Maciej> make install

Maciej> which I actually use for plain autoconf packages, which have
Maciej> no idea of install-strip.  Still, it's more like a workaround
Maciej> than a solution when the install-strip target exists but is
Maciej> unoptimal.

Here in automake-land, we've long considered this the primary
approach, with install-strip secondary.  My recollection is that
install-strip was added to the standards by RMS because he didn't want
to add INSTALL_SCRIPT.  In those days Fran├žois advocated
INSTALL_SCRIPT precisely so that stripping could be done at install
time.  RMS didn't like this and added install-strip instead.  For
automake I did both: install-strip because it was mandated, and
INSTALL_SCRIPT because, unlike install-strip, it had already been in
use in the field for some time and was known to be useful and
workable.

I agree that having install-strip work efficiently is important.
However I don't believe that it is more important than (1) getting 1.5
out in a timely way (though I don't believe this will derail it either
way), or (2) autoconf 2.13 support.

Maciej> Note that autoconf 2.13 isn't an issue anymore, I think.
Maciej> Version 2.50 is already released.

I disagree.  I believe that uptake of 2.50 will be slow and so
continuing support for 2.13 is important.

However, beliefs are not intrinsically useful.  Can we find a more
rational basis for making this decision?

Tom



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]