On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 10:53 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > "Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when
> ^^^^
>
> "should"?
>
"must" was intentional. Let's see what the arguments pro/con "should"
are.
> > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} will work. %makeinstall is a kludge
> > that can work with broken Makefiles that don't make use of the DESTDIR
> > variable but it has the following potential issues:"
>
> What if it doesn't have those issues in a particular case?
>
It must still use make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. When reviewing the
package you have to assume that %makeinstall has broken something and
check for problems that could result from that. Theoretically, the
packager has performed those checks as well so there's a lot more work
involved with using %makeinstall than from using DESTDIR.
> Also, I'm not sure it's particularly fair to use the term "broken" for
> makefiles which don't include a DESTDIR variable. As far as I'm aware,
> that's not a _requirement_ for a makefile -- just a handy convention.
>
That's a good criticism. I hesitated over using broken or old and chose
the least inaccurate. Do you have a better word or phrase to describe
them? Non-compliant with GNU standards for Makefiles is accurate but
overly limiting in scope. Maybe simply removing the adjective
describing Makefiles altogether?
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
