Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 18:29:35 -0700 (PDT) From: julian@tfs.com (Julian Elischer) To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, terry@cs.weber.edu, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: new install(1) utility Message-ID: <m0rwJuZ-0003w0C@TFS.COM> In-Reply-To: <199504042329.RAA08021@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Apr 4, 95 05:29:41 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> > > > And jamming make-like dependency capability into install is a
> > > > cockamamy way to fix it.
> > >
> > > It has nothing to do with make-like dependency capabilities. With the
> > > addition of that option, install now determines if it really needs to
> > > install the files rather than blindly doing it no matter what.
> >
> > I think Terry means this:
> >
> > ${DESTDIR}${BINDIR}${PROG}: ${.OBJDIR}/${PROG}
> > install ${COPY} ${STRIP} -m ${BINMODE} -o ${BINOWN} -g ${GINGRP} \
> > ${PROG} ${DESTDIR}${BINDIR}
> >
> > install: ${DESTDIR}${BINDIR}${PROG}
>
> Ahh, but what if ${DESTDIR}${BINDIR}${PROG} was older than
> ${.OBJDIR}/${PROG} simply because it was deleted during a purge of
> /usr/obj. My arguement is that it doesn't *need* to be installed
> (especially in the case of libraries).
This is hte best argument I've heard for BOTH options..
i.e. the dependencies under Make, AND the install that doesn't (sometimes)
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0rwJuZ-0003w0C>