Re: PATCH: 3.1.6 install without rebuild (Re: 3.0 DESTDIR)

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 24, 10:04pm, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.1.6 install without rebuild (Re: 3.0 DESTDIR)
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} >This means that "make MODDIR=/some/new/path fndir=/some/other/new/path"
} >does not recompile zsh,
} 
} I intentionally wrote that code so that that *would* cause a recompile.

I understand that.

} Btw, my view is that giving different parameters to "make install"
} from those one gave to "make" is a bad practice, but if it is to be
} supported then the parameters from "make install" must take precedence.

Unfortunately, it's my understanding that the GNU-accepted practice for
changing the install location of software that is under autoconf/configure
control is exactly what my patch permits.  Of course we're not actually
GNU-ware (thank goodness) so we can ignore that if we choose, but it's
been causing me to have to copy things into the install directories by
hand for as long as I've been building 3.1.x.

Did you read my description of the "stow" utility?  If "make install"
alters the binary, how does one produce a correctly-configured binary
that can be managed by such a utility?

} After all, those are the parameters that will take effect if anything
} changes and gets rebuilt during the "make install".

Yes, that's true.  It's up to a package installer to do the steps in the
right order:  That is, never "make install" without first doing "make".

} Let's keep configured pathnames and install paths properly distinct.

Exactly.  Paths that are hardwired into compiled components should be
those specified at configure time, not those specified at "make" time.
That's why they call it "configure".

Unfortunately, without a much more significant rewrite of the module
build system, we can't achieve that.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com