[Bug 195645] Review Request: rasqal - RDF query library

[Michael J. Knox]

Hi,

sorry for the top post....

Personally, %makeinstall should be left to the developers discretion. As 
you had already previously stated:

"Why the %makeinstall?  makeinstall is an anachronism and should only be
used if make DESTDIR=... install is nonfunctional."

So, that would imply, that there could be a case for it. I don't know if 
rasqal falls into this, but if it works with make DEST... install then 
it should that.

Re: broken .la files... who cares? its a pointless concern since Fedora 
policy is not to ship .la files.

Hey.. look at that... I didn't disagree with you Ralf :)

Michael

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org  2006-06-18 16:14 EST -------
>> It's not that I do not want to use %makeinstall - it's that the packaging
>> guidelines that mention you shouldn't use it do not say *anything* useful about
>> it, why it's bad, and they're not even correct.   If I need to make this change,
>> I need to know because I have a bunch of other packages using %makeinstall.
>>
>> Let's take those rules step by step:
>>
>>       %makeinstall overrides a set of environment variables during "make
>> install". I.e. it performs make prefix="..." includedir="..." ...
>>
>> This is wrong - it overrides make variables, not environment variables.
> Unless make isn't broken and unless the makefiles aren't playing dirty
> games with make flags the effect is the same.
> 
>> In addition, this is all the rule says - it does not say that it is wrong or why
>> it is wrong.  So it's a) factually wrong and b) irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>       It is error prone, and can have unexpected effects when run against less
>> than perfect Makefiles.
>>
>> How is it error prone ?
> 
> - More sources of errors: A dozen vars vs. one single var.
> 
> - %makeinstall causes the makefiles to see a different set of variables
> between "make install" and other (previous/subsequent) invocations of
> make.
> 
>>  How does make DESTDIR=... not fail when run against a
>> less than perfect Makefile - for example, one that doesn't even *have* DESTDIR ?
>>
>>       It can trigger unnecessary rebuilds when executing "make install"
>>
>> Don't know about this one, it may be true or may not be true, but in all the
>> packages I've built I've never known this to be a problem that actually bothered me.
> It's the second point above.
> 
> %makeinstall causes the makefiles to see different variables during
> "make install", than those which had been used in %configure or during
> "make all".
> 
> This triggers broken rebuilds, if a makefile contains dependencies on
> the make variables being changed during %makeinstall.
> 
> A similar problem occurs with makefile which edit/generate files during 
> "make install" ("install-hooks"), e.g. to propagate final installation
> dirs to scripts/config-files.
> 
>>       If a package contains libtool archives, it can cause broken *.la files to
>> be installed.
>>
>> I haven't seen broken .la files,
> This issue for example affects(~ed?) GCC.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 
> --
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers