Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>]

Jim Blandy writes:
 > Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com> writes:
 > 
 > > 'make install' in the doc directory wasn't doing anything useful....
 > > 
 > > Is this ok? (lifted from bfd/doc's makefile)
 > > 
 > > Elena
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 2002-11-22  Elena Zannoni  <ezannoni@redhat.com>
 > > 
 > > 	* Makefile.in (install): Make install do some real work.
 > > 
 > > Index: Makefile.in
 > > ===================================================================
 > > RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/gdb/doc/Makefile.in,v
 > > retrieving revision 1.23
 > > diff -u -p -r1.23 Makefile.in
 > > --- Makefile.in	20 Nov 2002 00:47:59 -0000	1.23
 > > +++ Makefile.in	22 Nov 2002 20:10:08 -0000
 > > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ STABS_DOC_FILES = \
 > >  #### Host, target, and site specific Makefile fragments come in here.
 > >  ###
 > >  
 > > -all install:
 > > +all:
 > >  
 > >  info: $(INFO_DEPS)
 > >  dvi: gdb.dvi gdbint.dvi stabs.dvi refcard.dvi
 > > @@ -432,3 +432,4 @@ distclean: clean
 > >  maintainer-clean realclean: distclean
 > >  	rm -f GDBvn.texi *.info* *.dvi *.ps *.html *.pdf
 > >  
 > > +install: install-info
 > 
 > I think, at some point in the distant past, it was controversial
 > whether packages should install their info files by default.  I think
 > that was back when disks were much smaller than they are now.
 > Nowadays most packages install their info by default, so there's no
 > reason for GDB not to do so as well.

I don't know, but bfd has this comment:

# We want install to imply install-info as per GNU standards, despite the
# cygnus option.
install: install-info


seems it was something Cygnus did and never was changed back.

committed.
Elena