[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: standards for info install
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: standards for info install |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:07:52 GMT |
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 address@hidden 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 address@hidden
Whatever happens, I'll try to keep the lines to their current lengths :).
Thanks,
K
- standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/10
- Re: standards for info install, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/02/11
- Re: standards for info install,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/18
- Re: standards for info install, Aubrey Jaffer, 2010/02/19
- Re: standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/18
- Re: standards for info install, Aubrey Jaffer, 2010/02/20
- Re: standards for info install, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/02/21
- Re: standards for info install, Karl Berry, 2010/02/21