On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 05:36:34PM +0200, Giorgio Pioda wrote: > Hello Paul and Damyan > > > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:59:31PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > >> [added the list again] > >> -=| Giorgio Pioda, Thu, 24 May 2007 21:11:19 +0200 |=- > >>>> If I were you, I'd try to make "make install" not strip anything, > >>>> patching if necessary[1]. The problem with dh_install approach is > >>>> that you have to check carefully if there is something new to > >>>> install every now and then, which leads to problems (as already > >>>> seen). > >>>> > >>> The world is nice because it is possible to find many different > >>> opinions... > >> I see your confusion and I understand it. It is not so good feeling to > >> try to satisfy contradicting requirements. > >> > >> I, personally, will not sponsor a package that replaces a perfectly > >> working "make install" with broken dh_install usage. Even if > >> dh_install usage is fixed, I still don't like it. This, of course, does > >> not mean that nobody else will want to sponsor it. > >> > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > I am by no means an expert on debian, but as the upstream developer of > > peless, I have to agree with Mr. Damyan Ivanov on this technical issue. > > > > The history of Computers shows that whenever the same piece of data > > is stored/maintained in more than one place, they inevitably get out > > of sync, resulting in bugs and problems. > > > > As the developer of peless, I must insure that "make" and "make install" > > work properly. I do this indirectly by making sure that configure.ac > > and Makefile.am are correct. "make" and "make install" control the > > way peless is built and the way files are copied to their ultimate > > destinations. "make" and "make install" definitely must be used for > > distributions other than debian. Now I glean from the discussions > > you have been having, that if dh_install is used, then essentially > > the same information must be maintained somewhere else. History > > shows that this can not be good. > > Ok, then in that case the configure and make could be improved to have a > clean "nostrip" option which normally is called with > > "make install -s" > > and can be set up in debian/rules together with the noopt option > OK, but first let me understand what I am fixing. What is wrong with "make install" as it is? There is also a "make install-strip". I did not do anything special to create these targets; auto* tools created them. What exactly is wrong with "make install"? Thank you. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott@io.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Attachment:
pgpD9iDdU6okB.pgp
Description: PGP signature