GNU bug report logs - #14064
info.info page has conflict with info package

Previous Next

Full log

Message #48 received at 14064 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 14064 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14064: info.info page has conflict with info package
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:26:09 +0300

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 14064 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:29:50 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >> So AFAICS there is nothing clever the Emacs install rule can do
> >> here. As I said, I'd just make the rpm spec file unconditionally not
> >> install Emacs's info.info.
> >
> > How is an rpm more clever than Emacs?  What do they do that Emacs's
> > installation procedure cannot?
> 
> I won't explain this very well, but:
> 
> You configure+build+install once on one machine, making a binary rpm
> that other people install on their machines. When they do so, they don't
> run any of the Emacs Makefile pieces, the rpm just unpacks itself (like
> a tar file, I guess, but smarter, registering what file gets installed
> where, etc). It can choose to do various clever things at installation
> time, but these things are controlled by the rpm's specification file,
> not by any part of the Emacs normal installation rules.
> 
> AFAICS, there is literally nothing smart the Emacs Makefiles can do
> about this issue, because they are not invoked at the relevant point.

That's true, but why do we bother about Emacs being installed from an
rpm?  That's _really_ the job of whoever prepares the rpm.  They have
the same problem with GDB, for example, which installs libbfd.

I thought we are talking about "make install", where we do control
things.  Does it make sense to refrain from overwriting at that time?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.