Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 21:48:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patches for [x]install Message-ID: <200206080448.g584mZvv068978@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20020607214350.A25230@FreeBSD.ORG> "from J. Mallett at Jun 7, 2002 09:43:50 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J. Mallett said: > * From "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> > > The first patch fixes install(1). The reamining patches > > correctly document the breakage of rev 1.55 of xinstall.c I should have stated that if the first patch isn't acceptable, then the remaining patches should be applied. > > The last patch is wrong, the others are good, though a warning about the > overriding of flags might be nice until this is ACCEPTED behaviour by the > user community. > > The third patch is wrong because there are things other than -C that one > might want to override INSTALL with, for example an INSTALL that uses a > replacement program that static relinks an executable being installed > to a partition where its dynamic dependencies are not satisfied. No. The third patch is correct (see below); otherwise I could set INSTALL to " install -C" QED. > > I've known people to do similar. > > > --- share/mk/sys.mk.orig Fri Jun 7 18:05:26 2002 > > +++ share/mk/sys.mk Fri Jun 7 18:06:13 2002 > > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ > > .endif > > EFLAGS ?= > > > > -INSTALL ?= install > > +INSTALL = install > > > > LEX ?= lex > > LFLAGS ?= > > -- Steve http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/ 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?200206080448.g584mZvv068978>