On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 08:56:19PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2002 19:10:43 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 12:55:48PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > > On 22 Apr 2002 12:07:41 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you do not use "make install" ...
> > >
> > > Sorry, this is really something I don't want to be ever suggested.
> > >
> > > The "make install" step is mandatory for every non-trivial program.
> > > There is no any reason not to do it, except for ending up with a non
> > > working installation.
> > >
> > > All installation directories are configurable using ./configure.
> >
> > That may all be correct, but the reasons why I personally do not
> > use make install are
> >
> > 1) "make install" does not work from within a running fvwm session
> > (at least the last time I tried). It does not overwrite the
> > running executables.
>
> I do "make install" with fvwm running for years. I think the problem was
> prior to some linux version (2.0.x?), but it just always worked for me.
>
> > 2) It's ten times slower than my custom script that just overwrite
> > the executables before restarting.
>
> On my 350MHz. 128Mb machine "make install" after "make" takes 20 seconds,
> pretty acceptable. But I usually only do "make install" in the fvwm/
> directory if modules are not changed, this takes one second.
>
> > When I'm hacking away, I easily reinstall and restart fvwm 100
> > times per day. With my script, that takes about five to ten
> > minutes, with "make install" it's one to two hours.
>
> I don't think so. You should do "make" anyway, it consumes all the time.
> "make install" takes a constant time, 20 seconds on my machine. And if you
> combine "make; make install" into one "make install" it takes even less.
You see, the difference is 1 second with my script and 20 seconds
with make install. The relation is pushed a bit in favour of make
install because restarting takes constant time.
> If you post your script, I can point out many problems with it as
> compared to "make install".
I'm fully aware of the many problems of the script. Usually I
copy only the executables (and only if they changed). I didn't
care to adapt copying of config files, utils and shell scripts for
a long time.
> The point is your script to work correctly
> should reimplement what "make install" does, i.e. be equally slow.
Sure, it should do that, but I don't need most of the make install
functionality. But it would never become as slow because it has
the paths of the files to install hard coded and doesn't have to
start make five dozen times in various directories.
Bye
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, email: d.vogt_at_lifebits.de
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 04:35:58 BST