TeX 1995 July/TeX CD-ROM July 1995 (Disc 1)(Walnut Creek)(1995).ISO/tex-k/tex-k-archive.past/1995.02/[e-mail]_Thu Feb 16 08:49:28 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 1995-02-28 | 6KB

Received: from albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu by cs.umb.edu with SMTP id AA01478
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <[e-mail]>); Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:49:45 -0500
Received: from hill.gnu.ai.mit.edu by albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:49:32 -0500
Received: by hill.gnu.ai.mit.edu (15.11/4.0)
    id <[e-mail]>; Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:49:28 est
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:49:28 est
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]> (message from Timothy Murphy on Thu, 16 Feb 1995 17:32:33 (GMT))
Subject: Re: m68k-sony-newsos build

   > .....My presumption was that every thing was set up in the
   > `usual' places ...

   What do you mean by the "usual" places ?
   It is certainly easier if you put things in the places Karl suggests.

By `usual places', I meant the places Karl suggests.  I think his
layout is excellent.

My difficulties with this build are a `how do you model the world'
problem.  My presumptions, heavily influenced by just having built
Emacs, GCC, and some other packages from scratch, were:

  * Everything you need to construct a package from scratch is in
    /usr/local/src/SOURCE-DIR or subdirectories thereof.  You already
    have the other things you need, like a compiler and the contents
    of the customary libraries.  You do not get these things when you
    get the package.  They are not part of it.

    For example, everything I needed to build diffutils-2.7 untar'ed
    from /usr/local/src/diffutils-2.7.tar into a
    /usr/local/src/diffutils-2.7 directory.  I could cd into that
    directory and build from there.  Nothing left that directory until
    I typed `make install'.  This way I could protect my previous
    (known to be working) version of the software.

  * A top level `configure && make' executed in /usr/local/src/SOURCE-DIR
    creates plain vanilla executables and other files and puts them into
    /usr/local/src/SOURCE-DIR or some sub-directory of SOURCE-DIR.

  * A subsequent top level `make install' puts the executables and
    other relevant files into appropriate places, as defined by the
    Makefile writer, such as `/usr/local/bin' and `/usr/local/lib'.

I just reread kpathsea/HIER, as directed in a top level README, and it
still leaves me with the impression that `make install' should put
things into the directories suggested.

That you don't presume this indicates you have a different model of
building packages than I do.  My suggestion here is not that your
model is wrong, but that mine is better suited to people who are not
expert in TeX installation.

   > Also, the documentation says that web2c is what you need for `TeX,
   > Metafont, and friends'.

   I didn't understand your complaint here --
   do you mean you didn't know what "friends" meant ?

I presumed that `friends' meant everything I needed to install a
working Tex, so I could generate a .dvi file.  I do not know the names
of the programs defined as `friends' and should not have to bother to
learn.  My goal is to produce .dvi files, view them, and print them.
Installation is just a chore.

   > Incidentally, after building TeX, I changed to the `dvipsk-5.58f/'
   > directory, typed `configure', and then `make', and then `make
   > install', and everything worked fine.  Here is a situation where my
   > mental model of what ought to be done corresponded to the real world;
   > and following the instructions actually worked.

   You know dvipsk is by the same guy (Karl Berry)
   and follow exactly the same pattern ?

I know it is by Karl; the point is, it did *not* follow the same
pattern as the TeX build.  If compiling Tex had followed the same
pattern, I would not have written a bug report.  `dvipsk' and `xdvik'
are packages that follow the pattern I am advocating.

In brief, what I would like to see is the build-from-scratch for TeX
and Metafont to adapt the same pattern as for dvips and for xdvi.

That TeX appears to you to follow the same pattern as dvipsk may mean
that you are not actually building from scratch; or that you are more
expert than you realize (a common problem with experts, and the AI
people have discovered), and that you do more for a from-scratch build
than you think.

[e-mail] writes:

    On the simplest level, the argument against the single giant
    makefile is that it would be too enormous, and its contents
    arbitrary and bound to dissatisfy everyone.  ...  Exactly how big
    of a tex installation should be installed with "configure && make"?

We may have a misunderstanding here.  I am not necessarily advocating
one or many makefiles.  I am advocating a top level makefile that
enables you to build TeX from scratch.  It might also let you build
other things (or give you clear pointers on how to build parts).  In a
TeX distribution, I expect `make' to build what I need to create .dvi
files.

In more detail, I am advocating a top level makefile in which:

  * you can run `configure'

  * you can run `make', and build a complete new plain vanilla
    version, with everything staying in or below the current directory
    (so you don't risk damaging the previous version you had).

  * you can test your new version, and when satisfied that it works

  * you can install it in the `usual' places, i.e., those recommended
    by the person who wrote the makefile, by running `make install',
    trashing the previous version.

Best wishes.

    Robert J. Chassell               [e-mail]
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     [e-mail]
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   [phone]