[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: must install-sh be executable?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: must install-sh be executable? |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:15:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-09-01) |
Hello Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:59:59PM CEST:
> In automake-1.9b, the @install_sh@ variable was changed to start with
> '$(SHELL) '.
Yes. This issue has been discussed before, but is not resolved yet.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-09/msg00008.html
> Here is a fix that ensures that INSTALL and MKDIR_P are always starting with
> $(SHELL) when they refer to a shell script in the package.
The downside is that now @MKDIR_P@ is unusable in shell scripts, which
has previously not been the case. And AFAIK Autoconf doesn't explicitly
forbid this usage (I asked whether we could support this, at the time
AC_PROG_MKDIR_P was invented; so if this is changed now, it needs a NEWS
item and a doc update).
I wouldn't be surprised if prefixing INSTALL* with \$(SHELL) breaks
some existing configure.ac scripts/setups. Not all the world is a
makefile, and not all build tools are called `make'.
Probably Alexandre's suggestion to decouple AC_PROG_MKDIR_P and
AM_PROG_MKDIR_P seems the most useful to me. Not sure though.
Cheers,
Ralf