'make install-dev'

[Geoffrey Broadwell]

Intentionally breaking this out to a separate discussion ....

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 12:20 -0700, Will Coleda via RT wrote:
> > > (Perhaps you need to use Parrot's "make install-dev" or
> > > install the "parrot-devel" package for your system?)
> > >
> > > But I have the Parrot installed. I tryed several times to reinstall  
> > > without any result.
> > 
> > Did you run 'make install' or 'make install-dev'?
> 
> I'm assuming this was a result of using install instead of install-dev.


Needing to 'make install-dev' is becoming a FAQ because it's very
un-dwimmy, and it confuses our users enough that even getting a hint
from Rakudo does not manage to convince the user that this strange thing
is really necessary.  Plumage users already trip over this as well.

I have no problems with having two different install targets, one which
installs only necessary binaries and libraries, and another which fills
in all the other stuff needed to compile new things for Parrot.

But I really don't like the idea of the minimalist install being the
default target, and the one everyone actually needs being a weird
special name no one expects.  The usability quotient is ... low.

I've mentioned this before (in #parrotsketch, IIRC), but can we please
rename these targets as follows?

     install      -->  install-min
     install-dev  -->  install

('install-min' is just a suggestion.  Could go with 'install-tiny' or
'install-runtime' or what have you instead.)

We can leave an alias for install-dev around if it trips over a
deprecation rule.


-'f