[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: how to detect broken install-sh?

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: how to detect broken install-sh?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:46:08 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-09)

* Robert Collins wrote on Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 01:13:48PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>  What would be the best way?  Do you think this might cause other
> >>> problems?
> >> I suggest dropping install-sh completely except for the coreutils
> >> package.
> > 
> > Expecting GNU coreutils to be installed on each system is unreasonable.
> > Other systems have quite well-functioning tools, too.  Autotools
> > generally strive to produce packages that work well on all kinds of
> > Posix and almost-Posix systems.

> So I don't expect coreutils to be installed; I'm saying *packages other
> than coreutils* should *depend on a working /usr/bin/install*.
> Thats quite a different thing :)

Right; and sorry for mixing that up.  However, I still consider that
unreasonable.  install-sh is selected on several systems, including,
if I remember correctly, AIX, IRIX, Tru64, and Solaris (my access to
these systems is down ATM).  None of these can be expected to fix their
/usr/bin/install any time soon, esp. since install is not standardized
in any way.  Also, some systems are known to use an old version of the
install-sh script as install program, which doesn't support multi-file

Contrast that with us supplying a replacement script: that's easy,
rather lightweight in additional file size, maybe not in execution time
on systems where install-sh is selected.

I still don't see any valid reason to drop install-sh completely, esp.
not since the original bug report wasn't about our install-sh, but only
an old version of it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]