Jim Fulton wrote:
I'd like to step back and see if we can agree on what is driving the desire
for make install. I'll note that one reason is that it worked this way
before, but I don't think that that is a good enough reason to delay the
release.
I'll note one use case:
- A Zope deployer
Martijn Faassen wrote:
We should probably be holding this discussion later,
not right now, though.
Please. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Python Powered!
CTO (540) 361-1714http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation
I'd like to step back and see if we can agree on what is driving the desire
for make install. I'll note that one reason is that it worked this way
before, but I don't think that that is a good enough reason to delay the
release.
I'll note one use case:
- A Zope deployer wants to deploy an
Just as a data point.
A lot of autoconf projects (the ones that made ./configure; make; make
install famous) don't just run like that from a checkout, but they are
never more than 2 steps away from that.
The process for a checkout is usually more like
./autoconf; ./automake; ./configure; make;
On 12/21/05, Leonardo Rochael Almeida [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is: I don't think there's anything wrong in the install
procedure being different between the checkout and the tarball, but it
should never take more than a couple of fixed (and documented) steps to
convert a checkout to a
