[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Choosing not to install documentation

From: Kirk Strauser
Subject: Re: Choosing not to install documentation
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:09:10 -0500

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

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

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.

 dist_doc_DATA = README
 docdir =


Yielding: docdir was already defined in condition TRUE, which includes condition !INSTALLDOCS ... ... `docdir' previously defined here
make: *** [] 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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]