Questions about Fontconfig-2.4.2

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at
Wed Dec 12 15:35:09 PST 2007

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 02:45:04PM -0600, Chris wrote:
> I understand the above section, but what throws me for a loop is.
> 		make install &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.3 /usr/share/man/man3 &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.5 /usr/share/man/man5 &&
> 		install -v -m755 \
> 		        -d /usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2/fontconfig-devel &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/*.{html,pdf,txt} \
> 		        /usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2 &&
> 		install -v -m644 doc/fontconfig-devel/* \
> 		        /usr/share/doc/fontconfig-2.4.2/fontconfig-devel
 Hi Chris,

 I don't understand your problem, maybe you aren't thinking about
what the blfs editors are trying to do.  In general, once a package
is in blfs they make sure you get it _all_ (including
documentation).  So, they are fastidious and check to see what is in
a tarball - in this case, we have to assume that the man pages, and
also the development documentation, don't get installed by 'make
install'.  How do they notice that ?  Probably, by looking at the
build directory after 'make' and noticing what is available, and
then comparing it to what gets installed by 'make install'.

 So, the rest of us can follow the instructions with a high degree
of confidence, or decide that actually we might not want all the
documentation and silently drop the extra steps : our distros, and
if we break them by deviating from blfs we get to keep both pieces.

 Don't believe that the documentation - particularly basic build
documentation - in *any* package is necessarily complete or up to
date.  Hopefully, the build docs are close enough to let you compile
without too much trouble, but anything better than that in the
tarball is a real bonus.

 Or, have I totally misunderstood your point ?  (I can be *really*
good at doing that, sometimes.)

das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list