Re: Making demo programs more evident...

[Petr M. <mi...@ph...>]

> > $ rpm -q gnuplot
> > gnuplot-3.7.3-106
> > gnuplot-4.0.0-1
>
>
> > The former by SUSE, the other by
> > 	checkinstall make install-strip
>
> Well, suffice it to say that if you make a less complete RPM than SuSE,
> the blame for that is entirely yours.

I don't do RPM for distribution; I do it for myself to be able to uninstall
the package easily, from my own system. That's "checkinstall" good for.

Forget RPM and consider it as "make install" with a later possibility of
"make uninstall".


> > Now I want all goes into a useful directory there. Why not
> >
> > 	$HOME/usr/share/doc/gnuplot-4.0.0/
>
> Because it would break things for distributors, who want to build and
> install using '--prefix=/usr' and have the demos and other docs under
> /usr/share/doc/packages/gnuplot, not under /usr/share/doc/gnuplot-4.0.0

Distributors can put stuff where they want. Here, we speak about
making/instaling current gnuplot for yourself, not how distributors should
make their RPM.

Moreover, on a experimental workstation with HPUX, there is no RPM
distributor.

> I.e. we should leave the $(prefix)/share/doc directory alone.  If at all,
> it'ld have to be either
>
> 	$(prefix)/share/gnuplot/4.0
> or	$(prefix)/share/gnuplot-4.0
>
> I would prefer the former, because it's more in parallel with our
> installation directory for gnuplot_x11,
> $(exec_prefix)/libexec/gnuplot/4.0/

If someone makes such a Makefile target to be close to gnuplot 4.0.0
binaries zips for OS/2 or Windows, that'll be great.


---
PM