Re: `make install` should install the info files in java

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

> >>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
> 
> Andreas> I noticed one problem when running make install and have
> Andreas> therefore a questions: Should `make install` install all info
> Andreas> files or not?
> 
> We do this purely for historical reasons.
> 
> The internal Cygnus tree always used an explicit `install-info';
> `install' didn't install the info pages.
> 
> This convention predates my arrival at Cygnus.  However I imagine it
> was a lame attempt to implement something like the
> install-data/install-exec distinction.
> 
> libjava follows this because it was initially written internally.  It
> didn't get released until relatively late in its existence.
> 
> I don't think we need to keep doing this.  I think the whole gcc tree
> should instead follow the GNU coding standards.
> 
> Andreas> I noticed a number of messages from automake. Is automake 1.4
> Andreas> the correct version to use?
> 
> Unfortunately the situation here is a bit confused.
> We currently use a mildly hacked automake.
> 
> You can ignore the errors if you look at the changes to Makefile.in to
> verify that they are appropriately small.
> 
> I think this patch is ok.  If you can commit it, please do.  Otherwise
> tell me and I will sometime.

I could commit it - but the diff for Makefile.in was rather large and
didn't look really ok to me. I therefore prefer if you could commit it
and regenerate the Makefile.in files.

Thanks,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj