[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More an autopackage

From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: More an autopackage
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:35:59 -0500

Tom Tromey wrote:

> Unfortunately, I don't think it is that easy.
> First, contents can be conditional on the particular
> configuration.  That is why you really want to deal with the
> post-configuration package (using `make') and not
> Second, the more complex post-install scripts are generated by
> automake itself.  For instance, take a look at the hair required to
> install an info page.  It would be a pain for developers to have to
> insert this code by hand (if they even know it exists).

Good point, but the general design I pointed out should still hold.
Only the generated Makefile would be the source for the data needed for
spec file generation rather than the, whether that's passed
in or scanned.  The pre/post install hair should be scannable from the
Makefile as well, whether that's for a shared library or info.

The spec file source would want room for install hooks as well, still.
That way instructions for, say, taking a daemon down and up again could
be inserted before automake acquires a daemon target.


Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( )
Teacher is not a leper.
Teacher is not a leper.
Teacher is not a leper...

          - Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_

reply via email to

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