Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:18:26 +0300
From:      Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        arch@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: install -d -C (was: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man5 make.conf.5 src/share/examples/etc make.conf)
Message-ID:  <20020719121826.GA83942@sunbay.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020719120537.GA76558@sunbay.com>
References:  <200207181207.g6IC7nbZ050557@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020719210904.Q12629-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <200207181254.g6ICsubF065254@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020719212215.G12629-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020719120537.GA76558@sunbay.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 03:05:37PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:28:09PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >=20
> > > ru          2002/07/18 05:54:56 PDT
> > >
> > >   Modified files:
> > >     share/man/man5       make.conf.5
> > >     share/examples/etc   make.conf
> > >   Log:
> > >   To force install(1) to always compare files before installing, one
> > >   now needs to set COPY=3D-C as -C is no longer compatible with the -d
> > >   option.  It is also likely to be renamed to INSTALL_COPY soon.
> > >   Update documentation to reflect this change.
> > >
> > >   PR:             bin/40724
> >=20
> > The bug is that -C is no longer compatible with -d.  See also misc/4041=
4.
> >=20
> This PR is already closed.
>=20
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 09:21:14PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >=20
> > > ru          2002/07/18 05:07:49 PDT
> > >
> > >   Modified files:
> > >     etc                  Makefile
> [...]
> > >     usr.sbin/ypserv      Makefile
> > >   Log:
> > >   s/${INSTALL} -c/${INSTALL} ${COPY}/
> >=20
> > Strongly unapproved by: bde.
> >=20
> > This change is to help work around the foot-shooting of making -d
> > incompatible with -C and -p in install(1)'s flags.  It abuses the old
> > poorly named COPY variable which had become a no-op.  Now COPY is still
> > poorly named but has different semantics.  All this is like breaking
> > cc to reject combinations of flags that don't really go together (e.g.,
> > -I doesn't go with linking) instead of just ignoring the flags that
> > don't apply to the current operation, and then working around this
> > foot-shooting by splitting up CFLAGS and changing many Makefiles to
> > only use the part of CFLAGS that is relevant.
> >=20
> Since its first revision (install.1,v 1.7 and install.c,v 1.16 they
> were incompatible).  Later on, in rev. 1.26, it was made a no-op,
> just to support "INSTALL=3Dinstall -C" in /etc/make.conf.
>=20
> OpenBSD merged these changes and since then they still have them
> incompatible.
>=20
> There are two ways to proceed:
>=20
> 1.  Rename COPY to INSTALL_COPY (that was my plan), optionally giving
>     it by default an empty value.  This shouldn't harm third-party
>     makefiles as -c is now an effective no-op.  But this would make
>     us even more compatible with OpenBSD that has:
>=20
> : INSTALL_COPY    The old usage of this flag is obsolescent since install=
(1)
> :                 now copies by default.  However, it can also be used to
> :                 specify that a file not be copied unless it is different
> :                 (via the -p option).  See install(1) for details.  This
> :                 is to be used when building our own install script so
> :                 that the entire system can either be installed with cop=
ies,
> :                 or copy-if-different using a single knob. [-c]
>=20
OTOH, if we go this way we can get rid of ugly ${COPY} completely.

> 2.  Make again -C an allowed (ignored) option in the -d case.  This would
>     make us again incompatible with OpenBSD.
>=20
> I do not have a technical problem doing either, I'd just like to know
> what do others think about this.

I'm not sure what's the better way, please help me out.  :-)


Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov		Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com		Sunbay Software AG,
ru@FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251	Simferopol, Ukraine

http://www.FreeBSD.org	The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com	Enabling The Information Age

--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9OAOSUkv4P6juNwoRAkd6AJ0R2Q3Rt7jvlFxoekLV0aKf4mk/4wCcDF8o
Tg1DGiYPUiQ12B8X4f3SMF0=
=D3ME
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020719121826.GA83942>