[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz
Subject: Re: automake 1.4g: About `make install-strip'
Date: 28 May 2001 09:47:07 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7

>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <address@hidden> writes:


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

Although i initially suggested it, there is another
install-strip approach that we completly forgot: install
binaries using the system's install, and strip them afterward.


install-binPROGRAMS: $(bin_PROGRAMS)
        $(mkinstalldirs) $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)
        @list='$(bin_PROGRAMS)'; for p in $$list; do \
          if test -f $$p; then \
            f=`echo $$p|sed 's/$(EXEEXT)$$//;$(transform);s/$$/$(EXEEXT)/'`; \
           echo "$ (INSTALL_PROGRAM) $$p $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$$f"; \
           $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) $$p $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$$f; \
           $(MAYBE_STRIP) $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$$f
          else :; fi; \

        $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) \
          MAYBE_STRIP=`test -z '$(STRIP)' && echo strip || echo $(STRIP)` \

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

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

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

A survey of all the GNU packages?  (though it's out of topic
here, I would really be interested in knowing the proportion
of autoconfiscated packages use Automake).

Alexandre Duret-Lutz

reply via email to

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