Re: also copy install-sh

[Alexandre Duret-Lutz]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:27:40AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 11:07:49PM CET:
> > Would it make sense if libtoolize did not install any of these
> > scripts when Automake is used?  That way there is always only
> > one tool installing them in a given setup.
>
> Probably.  But let's ask the question the other way round:  What could
> be broken if libtoolize did not install any of these?

If Automake is used, nothing I can think of.

> Next question:  How does libtoolize reliably detect whether Automake is
> used (I can guess the answer, but am not certain)?

I don't think you can do this reliably (but I don't think you have too).

If AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE is used in configure.ac or if ./Makefile.am exists it
seems reasonable to assume that Automake is used.

It is possible to create Automake-based packaged where none of the above
conditions are true, but people doing that probably do not need any help to
cope with files installed multiple times.

> Another one:  Can we expect forward-compatibility (in the sense that
> the newest available script will always be the best)?

You can expecte backward compatibility (i.e. a newer install-sh should
work where a previous install-sh used to work) on the stable branch,
and maybe from HEAD (by this I mean that backward compatibility is not
broken gratiously, but when we need to it occurs on HEAD -- this has
happenned to install-sh already).

Forward compatibility is not to be expected at all (an old install-sh
cannot cope with the any option introduced in a later install-sh).