Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:20:53 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: alpha-971114: Makefiles revisited
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.971123192428.12501C-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971124132035.23713O-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> Well, using my patches to the makefiles, you can: Just by unpacking
> the djlsr distribution .zip to somewhere else than $(DJDIR) (and maybe 
> changing the line setting MY_LIBGCC_A in makefile.def), you can build
> them without overwriting anything at all.
> 
> My original diffs from July went one step further: they wrote nothing to
> any place up-tree of the 'src' directory during the 'make' run. Everything
> was built in src/{bin,lib,info,include}, and only by calling 'make
> install' it would be transferred to the actual target location.

Having an install: target is not that important, IMHO, for two
reasons:

       1) You cannot (easily) test the new products unless you install
          them, because otherwise compilations will still use the old
          libs.

       2) Creating a zip file with a correct directory structure also
          requires that the products be copied into the proper places,
          at least relatively to `src'.

So I think that if the normal build process could use some variable as
the parent of lib, bin, etc. (instead of `..'), this would suffice.