'make install-dev'

[Will Coleda]

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <geoff at broadwell.org> wrote:
> 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

As a HLL implementor, this minimal install of parrot is useless to me,
and I'd sooner just drop install and rename install-dev to install.

> 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.

But this works as a plan B.

>
> -'f
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
>



-- 
Will "Coke" Coleda