Follow-up Comment #5, bug #66085 (group groff): [comment #4 comment #4:] > The use of a file named "INSTALL" in a source distribution is > a familiar and long-standing convention.
Fair point.
> Moreover, the "README" file explicitly steers people to
> "INSTALL.extra" and "INSTALL.REPO",
Yes, but even the README cites INSTALL.extra only for people looking to
_install_. It mentions building in relation to INSTALL.REPO, but deems that
file's contents "supplementary instructions."
> People might try consulting what's already there first...
I'll admit to being a shoot-first-read-the-manual-later sort. But even in
retrospect, there seems a mismatch between the filenames and their contents
(apparently part of a storied tradition), and between the README and
MANIFEST's descriptions of the files and their contents.
> I'm inclined to defer to a gnulib expert.
Makes sense.
> I won't be surprised if the answer is "sorry, you've just
> gotta `distclean` before re-`configure`-ing."
OK. But I'd like to know whether this is something anyone else can reproduce.
If it's happening only on my system, is the build somehow picking up my
$HOME/bin/mv despite claiming to use /bin/mv? Or is it for some reason giving
/bin/mv the -i option in the Makefile? Either of those seems mildly buggy.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66085>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
