[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: improve INSTALL contents

From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: improve INSTALL contents
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 02:29:38 -0400

   Indeed - I want to be very clear in INSTALL that there are some
   basics that pretty much any client of this file provide (make, make
   install), and some options that nice packages provide but which may
   fail if someone borrowed this file but does follow everything
   checked by automake's distcheck (whether or not they use automake).
   Would it be better to put the discussion of DESTDIR in the Optional
   Features node, alongside the discussion of --enable-silent-rules?
   Or do we just keep a disclaimer phrase in place, such as:

       Some packages support installation into a staging directory
       (e.g. for packaging or testing purposes), by setting the
       DESTDIR variable, as in @samp{make address@hidden install}.

Please not not hide this information in a seperate section.  A small
disclaimer like you purpose is a good middle ground, though I would
write `Most packages ...', since most packages do support DESTDIR.

I think we should try to make users more aware of DESTDIR, so that
they can report bugs for packages that do not support it.

reply via email to

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