On tis, 2009-08-18 at 15:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 14:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm leaning more towards the "make install-docs" solution after further
> >> thought. One thing that's always been a bit bogus about make install
> >> is that it installs the docs only if they're there. With a separate
> >> top-level target, it would be reasonable to throw an error if the
> >> docs aren't there and can't be built.
>
> > I don't think we should impose an additional burden on the users because
> > of some glitches in the workflow of some developers. There can be
> > another solution. We can add an option or a make target or whatever to
> > refine the behavior in a developer environment.
>
> Well, having "make install" behave in a history-dependent fashion is just
> as much a hazard for users as it is for developers.
That's kind of a built-in feature of make. Otherwise we could write the
build rules as shell scripts. ;-)
Anyway, a simple fix that doesn't upset too many things would be to
remove the dependencies
install-html: html
install-man: man