[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency

From: Helge Hess
Subject: Re: removing the 'make install'-->'make all' dependency
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:54:49 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021201


personally I dislike your suggestion. "install" should invoke "all" to ensure consistency. I already see me searching to find out why the hell my (or others) changes aren't reflected in the installation base ;-)

Some more ideas (unstructured):

- the behaviour is absolutly standard. I've never seen a Unix source which doesn't 'make all' as part of 'make install'. If you do cross-user things, you should be aware about the results.

- if you know and are allowed to install things as "root" (su -), you should be aware on how to properly compile before and how to fix problems if you didn't (su chown -R ./obj)

- you should never install things as root since a) identity is lost and b) it isn't necessary in 98% of the cases. IMHO the proper solution is to give the /GNUstep (or better, /GSLocal) permissions that allow you to do installs - most likely by creating a Unix group (eg gsadmin), giving the tree the g+w permission and add trusted accounts to the gsadmin group.

- Adam said something about RPM. We build all our packages as a normal Unix user. Build-Root is exactly for that. Eg we use a separate GNUstep tree for the %build and for the %install section (and a local RPM database) to get clean builds.

- I always use RPMs for system-wide installations. during development I always have a user-owned GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT and therefore never run into the mentioned problem. (the situation where a developer can do make-install as root is not practical in teams +3 people).

BTW: did anyone consider adding compiler_cache as a standard feature to GNUstep-make ?


reply via email to

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