[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?

From: Tim Van Holder
Subject: Re: autotools not suited to proprietary development?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:50:49 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20060909)

Ryan McDougall wrote:
> should I understand that (for example) when redhat/debian build lets say
> libc for packaging as a binary, they download a tarball and do a
> complicated form 
> './configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install' on a bare machine
> without any libc, then tar up the result for an RPM or DEB?
> I have looked briefly how to make RPMs, but Ive got some missing pieces
> here...
> Im well aware this is getting offtopic, so if possible could you spare a
> clue and a link to a place where I can research the problem more myself?
> Cheers,

They do the equivalent of

  <extract tarball>
  <apply distro patches>
  ./configure --prefix=/usr <other switches as needed>
  make (possibly "make check" instead)
  make install DESTDIR=<distro package staging area>
  cd <distro package staging area>
  <build package using current dir as root dir>

I think they tend to use chroot for "make install" so non-automake trees
work as required (as do automake-based trees with non-DESTDIR-handling
custom rules), but that's basically all there is to it.

reply via email to

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