On 28/08/12 11:46, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 28 August 2012 07:46, Stuart Rackham <[email protected]> wrote:
There are a number of outstanding issues relating to the AsciiDoc
autotools based installer that have remained unresolved for some time
now.
I didn't address these issues in the 8.6.8 release because I
don't have enough autoconf and packaging experience to understand the
implications (especially with regards to cross-platform installation
and downstream packaging issues).
1. 'Upgrade install-sh to one from a recent autotools package'
(suggested by Lex).
https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc/browse_thread/thread/753a52b2af85fcfc/04c9091b0856fc13
BIG caveat, I'm no expert on autofools (oops autotools) but I don't
think install-sh should be distributed, it should use the one that is
part of the automake package on the user machine.
Makes sense, in lieu of reasoned protestations to the contrary, I will remove
it.
2. 'Take install-vim out of the default target' (suggested by Lex).
https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc/browse_thread/thread/753a52b2af85fcfc/04c9091b0856fc13
3. 'Vim files installed into /etc regardless of --prefix', this issue
was reported on the issue tracker over a year ago:
https://code.google.com/p/asciidoc/issues/detail?id=4
The Debian packagers at least fix this since their package puts it in
/usr/share/vim. I guess that indicates their approach to the previous
issue of installing to other apps is that it is ok to do it.
But I still don't want vim stuff by default ;)
Does this mean packagers will be impacted the Vim stuff is moved?
If yes then we'll leave it as it is, if no and someone cares enough to
submit a patch then I'll look at changing it.
4. 'Makefile.in does not follow the autoconf standard', another
long-standing issue:
https://code.google.com/p/asciidoc/issues/detail?id=2
I'm happy to leave things as they stand (they've been around for a
while and the sky hasn't fallen in) or apply documented tested patches
if there is consensus and/or persuasive arguments from affected
users and packagers (keep in mind that this area potentially
affects downstream packaging and is particularly sensitive
to regressions).
Yeah, packagers usually have a set of patches they apply to adapt to
their rules so it makes more work each time something changes, even if
it is correcting the problems they are correcting with their patches
since the patches have to be changed to not apply.
Thanks for your input Lex.
Cheers, Stuart
Cheers
Lex
Cheers, Stuart
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"asciidoc" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
