Re: Files built but never installed

[Peter J. Acklam]

"John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 10-May-2004, Peter J. Acklam <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> |     /var/tmp/octave-2.1.57/doc/interpreter/octave.dvi
> |     /var/tmp/octave-2.1.57/doc/interpreter/octave.ps
> |     /var/tmp/octave-2.1.57/doc/liboctave/liboctave.dvi
> |     /var/tmp/octave-2.1.57/doc/liboctave/liboctave.ps
> | 
> | My build dir was (obviously) "/var/tmp/octave-2.1.57".  Is there
> | any reason why these files are not installed?  If the files aren't
> | installed, why build them in the first place?
> 
> So you can view or print them.

Well, if they aren't installed they will be gone when the build
dir is removed, but perhaps they aren't really meant for end
users.  I just found it strange because if I hadn't kept track of
what was built without and with TeTeX, I would never have noticed
these files at all.

> Where would you have them installed?  I don't think there is any
> standard location for installing documents like this.

I put "non-man" documentation under /usr/local/doc, so I would
place them in

    /usr/local/doc/octave/interpreter/octave.dvi
    /usr/local/doc/octave/interpreter/octave.ps
    /usr/local/doc/octave/liboctave/liboctave.dvi
    /usr/local/doc/octave/liboctave/liboctave.ps

but that's just my preference.

> | The steps I used for building Octave were
> | 
> |    ./configure LDFLAGS=-R/usr/local/lib --disable-readline
> |    make
> |    make check
> |    make install
> 
> If you don't change the install prefix, the documentation should
> not have to be rebuilt.  At least that is the idea.  Perhaps
> there is a bug in the build system somewhere, or there are other
> variables that are substituted into the documentation that I've
> now forgotten about.

The documentation wasn't built the first time because then I
didn't have "tex" installed.  And clearly, if there is no "tex",
there will be no DVI files.  :-)

Peter

-- 
Peter J. Acklam - address@hidden - http://home.online.no/~pjacklam