This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install
Jim Blandy writes:
> 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.
I don't know, but bfd has this comment:
# We want install to imply install-info as per GNU standards, despite the
# cygnus option.
install: install-info
seems it was something Cygnus did and never was changed back.
committed.
Elena