Re: also copy install-sh

[Ross Boylan]

On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 06:37, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> OK to apply to HEAD and branch-2-0?  Automake is the owner of
> `install-sh', right?
> 
Seems like a good idea.  The one caution I'd give is that I don't know
for a fact that install-sh, by itself, is sufficient (as for 2.0, I
don't even know it's necessary). I know that attempting to use libtool
1.5.6 without automake caused an error about missing install-sh when I
attempted a configure.  I fixed that by having automake add a bunch of
files (2 others, I recall, as well as install-sh).  It might be that
some of those other files are needed as well.

> I could backport to branch-1-5 as well, if desirable.
Since I ran into the problem of missing files with 1.5.6, I find the
argument for a backport compelling :)  On the other hand, people have
lived this long without it (probably everyone uses automake anyway) ....


I can also imagine scenarios down the road where having install-sh in
two separate projects (libtool and automake) could lead to trouble.

Ross