From: Russel Ross (russelr_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 2003-08-03 02:22:34
I would like it. Its a convention for most linux source packages. A lot of times, I would rather install directly from the source than build an rpm. (Just my opinion of course...) On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:56:13 +0200 Ullrich von Bassewitz <uz_at_musoftware.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:46:57PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote: > > There doesn't seem to be an "install" target in the makefiles. Is > > this deliberate ? If not, would you be interested in a patch ? > > I wouldn't say that it is deliberate, it is more that I don't need it. > When testing, I'm using full paths to the compiler and tools. When > doing installs, I'm using the RPM packages - so there's no real need > for me to add an install target. Having such a target would mean that > I will have to keep it up to date and test it every time something > changes - which is definitely more work for me than it is now. > > Unemcumbered with these facts I'm willing to add an install target if > there is a need for it. So people compiling the package on a Unix like > operating system, who would prefer to have a "make install", please > speak up. > > Regards > > > Uz > > > -- > Ullrich von Bassewitz > uz_at_musoftware.de----------------------------------------------------- > ----------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to > majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the > body(!) of the mail. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-08-03 02:24:09 CEST