Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!haven!mimsy!mojo!stripes
From: stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Supporting more than one architecture?
Message-ID: <1990Feb6.003323.11540@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 90 00:33:23 GMT
References: <9001290214.AA08767@bnrmtl.com> <9002012353.AA24393@Morgan.COM>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Organization: Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 18

In article <9002012353.AA24393@Morgan.COM> jordan@morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>Which brings me to my current beef: "make install" does way more work
>than it needs to.  In particular, every time you run it, it will
>"install -c" nearly everything (all the header files and fonts, the
>binaries and the libraries -- not sure if that leaves anything left) --
>that is, there are no checks to see if these files have changed before
>installing.
It's worse then that if you want shared libs, the shared part (at least I hope
it's just the shared part) gets re-compiled everytime a make install gets done
in that lib.  Also there is no ranlib for the *.sa.* files.

>Bummer.
MegaBummer.
-- 
           stripes@wam.umd.edu          "Security for Unix is like
      Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The          Mutitasking for MS-DOS"
      "The dyslexic porgramer"                  - Kevin Lockwood
    Who needs friends when you can sit alone in your room and drink?