On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 16:24 -0700, Jonathan Leto wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> > As a HLL implementor, this minimal install of parrot is useless to me,
> > and I'd sooner just drop install and rename install-dev to install.
>
> +50
>
> I constantly swear at dealing with the difference between install and
> install-dev. Is there any benefit of having two install targets?
Distro packagers commonly like to produce foo and foo-dev packages,
because if the user only ever installs binary packages, they don't
(usually) need the -dev bits. We should still support both options
without forcing the packagers to guess which bits are -dev and which
aren't, by supplying a working makefile target for each case.
But for our users who actually compile and install Parrot themselves,
'make install' should do what 'make install-dev' does now, just as Coke
said. Distro packagers that want the 'binary only' bits can bloody well
use a randomly-named make target.
If you want to be especially friendly to the packagers, we can do:
install: install-bin install-dev
... and then make sure install-bin and install-dev install disjoint file
sets.
-'f
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
