lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev lynx_site.txt install path


From: Nelson Henry Eric
Subject: Re: lynx-dev lynx_site.txt install path
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:53:59 +0900 (JST)

> > It appears that lynx_cfg.h tries to find lynx-site.txt in           
> > $(helpdir) whereas makefile installs it in $(libdir).  I'd favor    
> > helpdir over libdir to avoid directory clutter at the libdir level. 
> > So, I changed makefile to install lynx-site.txt in helpdir where    
> > lynx expects it.                                                    
>
> $(libdir) is correct, since it is not a sharable (across platforms)
> file, like lynx.cfg

$(helpdir) IS a subdirectory of $(libdir), at present anyway; has
nothing to do with share vs lib.

I agree 100% with gil that I don't want lynx-site.txt in /usr/local/lib,
if I want it at all (under it is okay).

excerpting from my earlier post: "Re: lynx-dev 2.8.1 release"
> 2) On SunOS4.1.3, "lynx_site.txt" was installed in "/usr/local/lib",
> but on the info page it is looking in "/usr/local/lib/lynx_help".
[...]
> 3) Previously I asked that "CHANGES", "PROBLEMS", "README", "samples"
> and "test" not be installed automatically into the lynx_help.  If

Thinking about this, I wonder why a new install target couldn't be
set up to install "lynx_site.txt" in a subdirectory of lib, e.g.,
"lynx_doc", and then stick "CHANGES", "PROBLEMS", "README", "samples",
etc. in there along with it.  Have "make install-" for "help" and "doc"
independent of each other.  Making it mandatory to install a bunch of
other files along with the help files doesn't encourage people to install
their own help-file set.  Whether or not the link to "lynx_site.txt" is
put on the info page would then be decided by the lynx_doc flag, not
lynx_help.

> > This sort of works.  Unfortunately, the "install" target            
> > installs lynx-site.txt, only to have it obliterated when I do an    
> > install-help.  I must then do an explicit install-log to reinstall  

Guess what I am saying is, if the mechanism is already there, why not
make them entirely independent.

> > Want a patch?                                                       

Never turn anything down :-)

__Henry

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]