This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Install config files
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: ams at gnu dot org, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: allan at archlinux dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:21:44 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Install config files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1391870730-6874-1-git-send-email-allan at archlinux dot org> <E1WCAST-0007qR-VQ at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <mvm61o4eub8 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <E1WHsDg-00017a-9N at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <mvmha7ode8d dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <E1WHscI-0002rn-GJ at fencepost dot gnu dot org> <mvm8ut0dctj dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <E1WHt0E-0003lF-DP at fencepost dot gnu dot org>
On 02/24/2014 05:43 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Correct order is for `make install [DESTDIR=...]' to not touch
> > SYSCONFDIR.
>
> No. The files are part of glibc, so they are supposed to be
> installed.
>
> This is not going forward. It has nothing to do with glibc being
> special, it has to do with plain old semantics for how `make install'
> works across all GNU projects -- and that is not to modify existing
> files in SYSCONFDIR.
I have to agree with Andreas Schwab here.
Is this described in the GNU Maintainers guide? I've never seen
such a requirement.
> What is wrong with `make install-sysconf' or even putting them in
> DATADIR? If they are so special and should not be modifed, then they
> should go under DATADIR, but if they are meant to be modified by a
> human then they should not be overwritten.
It's an extra target and code we don't need.
Cheers,
Carlos.