Re: New build process?

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

pmlists@free.fr (Peter Münster) writes:

> 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.

INSTALL are the instructions for a user installing from a tarball, so
they should likely not be overly complicated.  It does not harm to put a
sentence referring to INSTALL.BZR in, but INSTALL.BZR does not actually
need to be in a tarball.

I actually have a project where INSTALL is autogenerated from something
like doc/install.texi, so there is not even an INSTALL file in the
repository.  It is, naturally, in the tarballs.

I think we nowadays distribute INSTALL.CVS along in the tarballs, though
at one time we didn't.

-- 
David Kastrup