[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: More an autopackage

From: Tom Tromey
Subject: Re: More an autopackage
Date: 23 Jan 2001 17:13:44 -0700

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Sweet <address@hidden> writes:


I haven't tried this, but I read through the web site, and it
definitely looks like what I'd like out of an `autopackage'.

Michael>     1. Provide an install-sh like script that appends the
Michael>     installed file(s) or directories to and intermediate list
Michael>     file.  This will usually mean that you can wire existing
Michael>     apps' makefiles to install into the list file, which then
Michael>     can be used to build an actual distribution.

This is an attractive idea, but it doesn't work if you also want to
extract the post/pre-install/uninstall commands automatically.  And
you definitely do want to do this because sometimes these are hairy
scripts generated by automake itself.

One approach, which ought to work, would be to use the install-sh hack
and then scan each generated Makefile looking for the magic *_INSTALL
variable instance.  Then you could have a small script to extract
these fragments automatically.  This is a bit ugly, but it ought to
work ok, at least with automake-generated Makefiles (the only ones I
care about :-).

Michael>        The downside is that you have to somehow clear the
Michael>        existing list file before doing this, or only do it
Michael>        once, so that you have the correct set of files...

I don't understand this.

How does EPM handle the case where there are multiple binary packages
in a single source package?

Michael>     2. Provide some sort of script or tool to scan makefiles,
Michael>     looking at the install targets and somehow figuring out
Michael>     what files are getting installed.  This is an ambitious
Michael>     project in itself, and probably isn't worth the trouble.

I agree.  This could be very hard.  Take a look at the ugly Makefiles
generated by automake...

Michael> A third option in the context of an autopackage program is to
Michael> provide "AP" macros that are used to build both install rules
Michael> in the makefiles and entries in the list file.

This would work but would probably require extensive work on
automake.  That makes it unlikely.

Anyway, I'm really glad to find out about EPM.  I had never heard of
it until this discussion.  I'm definitely interested in enhancing
automake to make EPM's job easier, if that is possible.


reply via email to

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