[please don't top-post on technical lists] On 05/03/2010 11:02 AM, Lukas Kaser wrote: > Hi Eric, > > thanks for your detailed answer! > > Autoconfs behaviour makes complete sense to me now. Really happy with it. > > I would like to ensure if you mean with " If you follow recommended > practice of not installing config.h" not to distribute config.h. Am I > right? I didn't implement the (any) make install till now, but I think > no header file of the project I'm helping to maintain needs to be make > installed, e.g. to /usr/include. Good - if no headers are installed to /usr/include, then you have nothing to worry about. There are some projects that mistakenly install the config.h (perhaps under another name), even though config.h may have portions specific to the particular compiler options that were in effect during configure, and thus causes needless conflicts if they are installed into a public location and used outside of the package. An example would be python's python2.6/pyconfig-32.h, which is included by pretty much all other python headers, yet which can cause horrendous conflicts if you are trying to use both autoconf and C bindings of python in your own project. Thus, the autoconf recommendation that while it is okay to install package headers, and even have autoconf help in generating those headers, they should be as minimal as possible and should not include the installation of config.h. -- Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
