From owner-cvs-usrbin  Sat Aug 26 17:17:43 1995
Return-Path: cvs-usrbin-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id RAA06710
          for cvs-usrbin-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 17:17:43 -0700
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA06702
          ; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 17:17:36 -0700
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.34]) by Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA14352; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 17:16:28 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA16641; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 17:18:27 -0700
Message-Id: <199508270018.RAA16641@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-usrbin@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/xinstall xinstall.c 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Aug 95 08:44:09 +1000."
             <199508262244.IAA19856@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 17:18:24 -0700
Sender: cvs-usrbin-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>It was added to fix the abuse of install -s to install non binary files.
>>Installs specifically says in its man page it is for installing binary
>>files.
>
>I decided not to object again, because install's error handling is so
>poor that a little more won't be noticed.  E.g., strip() returns void
>after unlinking the file, so install usually "succeeds" after unlinking
>the bad target.  It may unlink the source ...
>
>It should exit after unlinking the file; it should exit if unlink()
>fails ...
>
>I plan to change install to leave the original file alone for longer, so
>that it can clean for failures up without touching the target.  Now it
>unlinks the target very early, so it can't restore the target, and
>when strip() fails the file being unlinked is usually a copy of the
>source.

   I'm open to suggestions. Please advise...I don't personally have an opinion.
If you want the change backed out, then it should be backed out of both trees.

-DG