Makefile: don't reference deleted INSTALL file in apidoc target

[olifre]

Fixes build error if all targets are made.

[giacomini]

Thanks for the PR. However I don't see any build error related to the INSTALL file. How can I reproduce it?

[olifre]

I have stumbled upon this by using a regular packaging tool (in this case, Gentoo's Portage). Packaging tools in general avoid calling autoreconf but call the actual steps individually, which increases reproducibility and highlights leftovers in automake configurations better.

I checked which commands Portage calls in this case, and it burns down to:

mkdir -p aux src/autogen
libtoolize --install --copy --force --automake
aclocal -I m4 
autoconf --force
autoheader
automake --add-missing --copy --foreign --force-missing
./configure
make -j10

It seems autoreconf -i -f has some tricks to work around the issue, it seems to find INSTALL referenced in the target and decides to generate it with some dummy content. That's probably why it's not seen in the CI here.

[olifre]

Note that another option would be to add:

AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = gnu

to Makefile.am. This enforces generation of all missing files required by the gnu strictness level of automake during the automake --add-missing step, so the INSTALL file with the usual dummy content will be generated even without autoreconf -i.

[giacomini]

I'm reluctant to change the build options. I don't want to risk that what comes out doesn't satisfy policies for other platforms. Would it be ok with you if I commit the INSTALL file, as it was already the case some time ago?

[msalle]

I'm reluctant to change the build options. I don't want to risk that what comes out doesn't satisfy policies for other platforms. Would it be ok with you if I commit the INSTALL file, as it was already the case some time ago?

I think it's actually better to have an INSTALL file committed, even if it's the default.

[olifre]

Would it be ok with you if I commit the INSTALL file, as it was already the case some time ago?

Sure, that would of course also be fine (note the alternative would be to drop the reference to the file as done in this PR, i.e. not install the file).

In general, since the gnu style basically means an INSTALL file should be present and autoreconf -i just creates it, either having it committed (and changing nothing else) or dropping the reference to it from the makefile (as done in this PR) seems like the two least dangerous choices.

[ellert]

The problem is the --foreign option to the call to automake in your build script. This overrides the default which is --gnu.
Without this the automake call will create the INSTALL file for you.

[olifre]

The problem is the --foreign option to the call to automake in your build script. This overrides the default which is --gnu.

The option --foreign is added by the package management infrastructure on Gentoo Linux if files mandated by GNU strictness are missing:
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/eclass/autotools.eclass?id=0e74da3a3d3fd1e90fb779e7ce3a1147ce3d5300#n455
I could of course carry a downstream patch creating the INSTALL file or explicitly add AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = gnu to Makefile.am via a downstream patch, but it would be nicer to have this upstream.

[ellert]

Installing the INSTALL file doesn't really make sense anyway. So accepting this PR would make sense anyway I think.