This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 22 Nov 2002 15:20:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install
- References: <15838.36534.883345.847460@localhost.redhat.com>
Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> writes:
> 'make install' in the doc directory wasn't doing anything useful....
>
> Is this ok? (lifted from bfd/doc's makefile)
>
> Elena
>
>
> 2002-11-22 Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
>
> * Makefile.in (install): Make install do some real work.
>
> Index: Makefile.in
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/gdb/doc/Makefile.in,v
> retrieving revision 1.23
> diff -u -p -r1.23 Makefile.in
> --- Makefile.in 20 Nov 2002 00:47:59 -0000 1.23
> +++ Makefile.in 22 Nov 2002 20:10:08 -0000
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ STABS_DOC_FILES = \
> #### Host, target, and site specific Makefile fragments come in here.
> ###
>
> -all install:
> +all:
>
> info: $(INFO_DEPS)
> dvi: gdb.dvi gdbint.dvi stabs.dvi refcard.dvi
> @@ -432,3 +432,4 @@ distclean: clean
> maintainer-clean realclean: distclean
> rm -f GDBvn.texi *.info* *.dvi *.ps *.html *.pdf
>
> +install: install-info
I think, at some point in the distant past, it was controversial
whether packages should install their info files by default. I think
that was back when disks were much smaller than they are now.
Nowadays most packages install their info by default, so there's no
reason for GDB not to do so as well.