Re: New build process?

[Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Peter Münster <pmlists@free.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27 2011, Tim Cross wrote:
>
>> Still, my main pint is I don't think we should get too carried away
>> trying to automate all of this. It is a common requirement and while
>> some may have been caught out, it is something you should expect when
>> working this close to the development layer. Efforts were made to
>> communicate the changes on this list (by you IIRC Eli) and there is
>> information in the INSTALL.BZR file. My objection with trying to
>> automate or eliminate this simple step is that the solution can often
>> be worse than the problem and adds just another point of potential
>> failure in a step which is already simple and straight-forward (once
>> you know about it!).
>
> +1
>
>
>> However, if we can rename the file or make
>> another copy of the instructions under a name which the majority feel
>> is more likely to be noticed, great - all for that.
>
> I don't see a big problem with the file name, but eventually you could
> merge its content into INSTALL and then remove INSTALL.BZR.
>

Except i don't believe you need to do this step when installing from a
tar ball - the configure script is usually provided. Therefore,
putting the instructions in the same file could confuse those building
from official non-evelopment releases (I'm assuming thats why they are
separated into two files now).

As you say, it not a big problem and I think its a communication issue
rather than a technical one and requires (possibly) requires a
communication fix rather than a technical one.

Tim