[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: install-local target?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: install-local target? |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:26:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hi Karl,
* Karl Berry wrote on Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 08:57:36PM CEST:
> - It isn't clear to me what should happen if the user typed
> make install-data
> or
> make install-exec
> only. Letting the hook run after one of them only seems clearly wrong.
>
> Yes, that would be wrong.
>
> Not running it at all would require some sort of `post-install' target
>
> Sorry, I don't understand all these complications. I didn't intend you
> to go down any of those roads. I was thinking of something simple:
>
> install: install-data install-exec
> $(MAKE) install-hook
>
> Or it could be a variable:
>
> install: install-data install-exec
> $(POST_INSTALL_HOOK)
I understand. But then you were no better off than you are now, in that
you still need to specifically document something like this for users of
your package:
If you choose to split installation of data and executables with
`make install-data' and `make install-exec', then after installation
has been completed, you also need to run `make install-hook' in order
to finish some post-installation actions.
BTW, I have another question: is it possible for your package to just
use the uninstalled programs for this post-installation action, and hook
things into install-data-hook? Also, what does your current workaround
do if the user uses $(DESTDIR) at `make install' time, or overwrites
prefix (as in `make install prefix=/tmp/dest') temporarily?
I'm sorry for exposing you to all these complications, but I would like
to get a feeling for how important and realistic an example this is.
We shouldn't add to the Automake API without good need.
> Can you work around it (or have already done so)
>
> I worked around it by adding the rules to a different top-level target
> ("world"), which my TeX builders are accustomed to using anyway. This
> is suboptimal.
Agreed.
> by simply adding
> install-{data,exec}-local
>
> I don't see how I can use install-{data,exec}-local to accomplish this.
> The command has to run once, after both install-data and install-exec
> have finished.
> It's certainly not the end of the world if it seems too complicated to
> you for any reason.
Hehe, yes, we can still go down the road of doing nothing, if we cannot
find a better way. ;-)
Cheers,
Ralf