Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Friday, January 21, 2005 11:16 PM +0000 Max Bowsher <email@example.com>
>> I'm for changing it again, because:
>> 1) I think we should be phasing out the direct use of install-foo by
>> users, in favour of configure --enable-foo flags, because that is what
>> people tend to expect in this autoconf-dominated world.
> Enabling a feature via autoconf is completely orthogonal to the issue at
> hand. --enable has nothing to do with the make install targets.
Except that it is a more standard UI for the optional build of additional
>> 2) The previous change to the current situation removed functionality
>> useful for packagers, or people locally installing in interesting
>> configurations, and left no easy workaround. Whereas people wanting
> I don't care much about third-party packagers and I don't understand why
> this would prohibit 'interesting configurations.'
The point is to be able to invoke the main install seperately from the
bindings install, and not have the bindings install go and selectively
reinstall parts of the main install.
>> dependencies ought to first understand that their binding of choice uses
>> the subversion libraries which may be used by other software too, so
>> should be implicitly replaced, and also, they have the trivial workaround
>> available of "make install install-foo".
> We had a number of complaints about the previous situation and I expect
> those to return if we revert this change. -- justin
Well, we are getting a number of complaints now, including from me, and we
have an issue filed about how the current situation is wrong.
Take particular note that patch adds far more dependencies than were
actually requested in the original bug report - the actual important one
that was requested was the one that would be retained by my modification
It's misleading for "make install-foo" to install something which is not
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Jan 22 11:59:21 2005