Hi Eric, Alfred,

thanks both of you.  Small nits:

* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 03:02:04PM CEST:
> --- a/doc/install.texi
> +++ b/doc/install.texi
> @@ -84,7 +84,10 @@ Basic Installation
> 
>  @item
>  Optionally, type @samp{make installcheck} to repeat any self-tests, but
> -this time using the binaries in their final installed location.
> +this time using the binaries in their final installed location.  This
> +target does not install anything.  Running this target as a regular
> +user, particlarly if the prior @samp{make install} required root

typo particlarly

> +privileges, verifies that the installation completed correctly.

> @@ -194,12 +198,12 @@ Installation Names
> 
>  The first method involves providing an override variable for each
>  affected directory.  For example, @samp{make install
> -prefix=/path/to/alternate} will choose an alternate location, as well as
> -influencing all other directory configuration variables that were
> -expressed in terms of @sam...@{prefix@}} (or, put another way, all
> -directories specified during @command{configure} but not in terms of the
> -common prefix must each be overridden at install time for the entire
> -installation to be relocated).  The approach of makefile variable
> +prefix=/alternate/directory} will choose an alternate location for all
> +directory configuration variables that were expressed in terms of
> +...@samp{$@{pre...@}}.  Any directories that were specified during
> +...@command{configure}, but not in terms of the common prefix, must each be

s/the common prefix/@sam...@{prefix@}}/  ?  Not sure whether that is
easier to read, but "common prefix" might be construed as configure or
make doing string comparison on the expanded values.

> +overridden at install time for the entire
> +installation to be relocated.  The approach of makefile variable
>  overrides for each directory variable is required by the @acronym{GNU}
>  Coding Standards, and ideally causes no recompilation.  However, some
>  platforms have known limitations with the semantics of shared libraries

Thanks,
Ralf


Reply via email to