Re: Choosing not to install documentation

[Kirk Strauser]

On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Why should providing more choice make lives hard for those that have  
> the
> choice?

Thanks!  I originally skipped the context of my request on the premise  
that it was uninteresting detail.  In short, FreeBSD has a build-time  
option for its third-party software (the "ports collection") called  
NOPORTDOCS.  Software installed with that option isn't supposed to  
include any documentation.  You'd typically use this in a server farm  
where you don't need 40 copies of the autoconf manual, for example,  
because you'll almost never be hacking autoconf on one of the servers  
and you have a copy on your local workstation if you really need it.   
You might also use that option when building packages that you'll be  
installing on a tiny system, like a wireless router.

> > but isn't it easier to just do `rm -rf
> > /usr/share/doc /usr/share/man' after `make install'?

Easier than having "--disable-installdocs" or the equivalent?  I don't  
personally think so.

>  if INSTALLDOCS
>  MAYBEDOCS = doc
>  dist_doc_DATA = README
>  else
>  docdir =
>  endif
>  SUBDIRS = src $(MAYBEDOCS)
>
> (untested).

Yielding:

Makefile.am:5: docdir was already defined in condition TRUE, which  
includes condition !INSTALLDOCS ...
configure.ac:5: ... `docdir' previously defined here
make: *** [Makefile.in] Error 1

But that seems promising and I'll keep exploring.  Thanks for the nudge!

> But say, you aren't looking for 'make install-exec' perchance, to
> install only architecture-dependent files?


Good point!  I'll look there, too.
--
Kirk Strauser
The Day Companies