On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 10:53 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> "Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must
NOT be used when
^^^^
"should"?
"must" was intentional. Let's see what the arguments pro/con
"should"
are.
> make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} will work. %makeinstall is a
kludge
> that can work with broken Makefiles that don't make use of the DESTDIR
> variable but it has the following potential issues:"
What if it doesn't have those issues in a particular case?
It must still use make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}. When reviewing the
package you have to assume that %makeinstall has broken something and
check for problems that could result from that. Theoretically, the
packager has performed those checks as well so there's a lot more work
involved with using %makeinstall than from using DESTDIR.
Also, I'm not sure it's particularly fair to use the term
"broken" for
makefiles which don't include a DESTDIR variable. As far as I'm aware,
that's not a _requirement_ for a makefile -- just a handy convention.
That's a good criticism. I hesitated over using broken or old and chose
the least inaccurate. Do you have a better word or phrase to describe
them? Non-compliant with GNU standards for Makefiles is accurate but
overly limiting in scope. Maybe simply removing the adjective
describing Makefiles altogether?
-Toshio