I find listing an absolute installed file as target name a bit
weird
Me too. I think it was written (by rms?) more to show the steps
involved than as something that should be copied. I don't recall ever
seeing a package that used this rule literally.
Perhaps I'll add a few more words of warning, or something. Or maybe we
should change the target to a pseudo-name like "install-info" and excise
the $...@. Yeah, I think we should. Unless rms vetoes that.
Comment atop of the example stating that changes are to be
communicated to bug-make.
...
@comment This example has been carefully formatted for the Make manual.
@comment Please do not reformat it without talking to [email protected].
Whatever happens, I'll try to keep the lines to their current lengths :).
Thanks,
K
