[RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Elena Zannoni]

'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

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Jim Blandy]

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.

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Elena Zannoni]

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

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Andrew Cagney]

> 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.

So that's the reason!   I knew there was one but couldn't remember what 
it was.

Elena, also note:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=723
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=245
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55

Andrew

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Elena Zannoni]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > 
 > > 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.
 > 
 > So that's the reason!   I knew there was one but couldn't remember what 
 > it was.
 > 
 > Elena, also note:
 > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=723
 > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=245
 > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55
 > 
 > Andrew
 > 

Argh. There is way more than what meets the eye. Ok, I'll look into
this a bit more.

Elena

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Elena Zannoni]

Elena Zannoni writes:
 > Andrew Cagney writes:
 >  > 
 >  > > 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.
 >  > 
 >  > So that's the reason!   I knew there was one but couldn't remember what 
 >  > it was.
 >  > 
 >  > Elena, also note:
 >  > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=723
 >  > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=245
 >  > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55
 >  > 
 >  > Andrew
 >  > 
 > 
 > Argh. There is way more than what meets the eye. Ok, I'll look into
 > this a bit more.
 > 

Hmmm... how about this? It seems to do the right thing for me.
Can somebody give it a try on their system?

thanks
Elena

2002-11-22  Elena Zannoni  <ezannoni@redhat.com>

	* Makefile.in (install-info): Run the install-info command as part
	of the post install steps only.
	(uninstall-info): New target.
	(uninstall): New target.

Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/gdb/doc/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	22 Nov 2002 21:02:20 -0000	1.24
+++ Makefile.in	23 Nov 2002 01:39:31 -0000
@@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ install-info: $(INFO_DEPS)
 	    else : ; fi; \
 	  done; \
 	done
+	$(POST_INSTALL)
 	@if $(SHELL) -c 'install-info --version | sed 1q | fgrep -s -v -i debian' >/dev/null 2>&1; then \
 	  list='$(INFO_DEPS)'; \
 	  for file in $$list; do \
@@ -164,6 +165,22 @@ install-info: $(INFO_DEPS)
 	  done; \
 	else : ; fi
 
+uninstall-info:
+	$(PRE_UNINSTALL)
+	@if $(SHELL) -c 'install-info --version | sed 1q | fgrep -s -v -i debian' >/dev/null 2>&1; then \
+	  ii=yes; \
+	else ii=; fi; \
+	list='$(INFO_DEPS)'; \
+	for file in $$list; do \
+	  test -z "$$ii" \
+	    || install-info --info-dir=$(DESTDIR)$(infodir) --remove $$file; \
+	done
+	$(NORMAL_UNINSTALL)
+	list='$(INFO_DEPS)'; \
+	for file in $$list; do \
+	  (cd $(DESTDIR)$(infodir) && rm -f $$file $$file-[0-9] $$file-[0-9][0-9]); \
+	done
+
 install-html: html
 	for i in *.html ; do \
 		$(INSTALL_DATA) $$i $(htmldir)/$$i ; \
@@ -433,3 +450,5 @@ maintainer-clean realclean: distclean
 	rm -f GDBvn.texi *.info* *.dvi *.ps *.html *.pdf
 
 install: install-info
+
+uninstall: uninstall-info

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Andrew Cagney]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 71 bytes --]

Eli, look ok?
If yes, can it please be pulled into 5.3 branch.

Andrew

[-- Attachment #2: mailbox-message://ac131313@movemail/fsf/gdb/patches#11071868 --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5892 bytes --]

From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>, Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:38:25 -0500
Message-ID: <15838.56337.22520.798218@localhost.redhat.com>

Elena Zannoni writes:
 > Andrew Cagney writes:
 >  > 
 >  > > 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.
 >  > 
 >  > So that's the reason!   I knew there was one but couldn't remember what 
 >  > it was.
 >  > 
 >  > Elena, also note:
 >  > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=723
 >  > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=245
 >  > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55
 >  > 
 >  > Andrew
 >  > 
 > 
 > Argh. There is way more than what meets the eye. Ok, I'll look into
 > this a bit more.
 > 

Hmmm... how about this? It seems to do the right thing for me.
Can somebody give it a try on their system?

thanks
Elena

2002-11-22  Elena Zannoni  <ezannoni@redhat.com>

	* Makefile.in (install-info): Run the install-info command as part
	of the post install steps only.
	(uninstall-info): New target.
	(uninstall): New target.

Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/gdb/doc/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	22 Nov 2002 21:02:20 -0000	1.24
+++ Makefile.in	23 Nov 2002 01:39:31 -0000
@@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ install-info: $(INFO_DEPS)
 	    else : ; fi; \
 	  done; \
 	done
+	$(POST_INSTALL)
 	@if $(SHELL) -c 'install-info --version | sed 1q | fgrep -s -v -i debian' >/dev/null 2>&1; then \
 	  list='$(INFO_DEPS)'; \
 	  for file in $$list; do \
@@ -164,6 +165,22 @@ install-info: $(INFO_DEPS)
 	  done; \
 	else : ; fi
 
+uninstall-info:
+	$(PRE_UNINSTALL)
+	@if $(SHELL) -c 'install-info --version | sed 1q | fgrep -s -v -i debian' >/dev/null 2>&1; then \
+	  ii=yes; \
+	else ii=; fi; \
+	list='$(INFO_DEPS)'; \
+	for file in $$list; do \
+	  test -z "$$ii" \
+	    || install-info --info-dir=$(DESTDIR)$(infodir) --remove $$file; \
+	done
+	$(NORMAL_UNINSTALL)
+	list='$(INFO_DEPS)'; \
+	for file in $$list; do \
+	  (cd $(DESTDIR)$(infodir) && rm -f $$file $$file-[0-9] $$file-[0-9][0-9]); \
+	done
+
 install-html: html
 	for i in *.html ; do \
 		$(INSTALL_DATA) $$i $(htmldir)/$$i ; \
@@ -433,3 +450,5 @@ maintainer-clean realclean: distclean
 	rm -f GDBvn.texi *.info* *.dvi *.ps *.html *.pdf
 
 install: install-info
+
+uninstall: uninstall-info

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Eli, look ok?

Yes.

Of course, it probably breaks gdb/config/djgpp/config.sed, but that's not 
your problem.

> If yes, can it please be pulled into 5.3 branch.

I'm for it.  I was griping for years about GDB not installing its Info 
files by default.

Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install

[Elena Zannoni]

Eli Zaretskii writes:
 > 
 > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
 > 
 > > Eli, look ok?
 > 
 > Yes.
 > 
 > Of course, it probably breaks gdb/config/djgpp/config.sed, but that's not 
 > your problem.
 > 

Ok :-)

 > > If yes, can it please be pulled into 5.3 branch.
 > 
 > I'm for it.  I was griping for years about GDB not installing its Info 
 > files by default.

committed

thanks
elena