Re: install-docs target

[Baurzhan Ismagulov]

Hello Daniele,

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 02:41:00PM +0200, Daniele Forsi wrote:
> this would have the least impact to the Makefile, but is it ok for packagers?
> 
> I read in Docs/packaging-howto:
> 
>     'make install' does not install documentation - one should use
>     each distributions' packaging routines for this job.  If you want
>     to install docs via a Makefile use 'make install-docs'.
> 
> The make install target also installs the include directory which is needed 
> only to compile programs that aren't in the main gnokii tarball. Shall we 
> keep it or add another target?

Whatever you decide, the decision is arbitrary and the only question is
whether you feel you want to do any changes to your packagers.

I've packaged rpm, deb, and Solaris pkg -- any of those can live with
either installing everything via make install, or installing nothing.
While I don't see much difference whether I call make install; make
install-docs; make install-dev, or just make install, I personally find
it easier when make installs everything, and you just list which file
belongs to which package.

But if you look from the perspective of a user installing without
packaging, you'll definitely want to install everything you would
consider a full installation (be it for program or library user) the one
that includes docs and development files (static libs, headers, etc.).
This use case is the most essential for me.

If you are interested what others do, have a look at
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Standard-Targets.html#Standard-Targets

GNU requires that info files are installed by make install, docs in
other formats should be installed by other targets like install-html,
etc. Further, my understanding of the install target is that GNU
packages should handle development files in make install.

My $0.02,
-- 
Baurzhan Ismagulov
http://www.kz-easy.com/