[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: automake 1.4g: About `make install-strip'

From: Maciej W. Rozycki
Subject: Re: automake 1.4g: About `make install-strip'
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:51:33 +0200 (MET DST)

On 26 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Here in automake-land, we've long considered this the primary
> approach, with install-strip secondary.  My recollection is that
> install-strip was added to the standards by RMS because he didn't want
> to add INSTALL_SCRIPT.  In those days Fran├žois advocated
> INSTALL_SCRIPT precisely so that stripping could be done at install
> time.  RMS didn't like this and added install-strip instead.  For
> automake I did both: install-strip because it was mandated, and
> INSTALL_SCRIPT because, unlike install-strip, it had already been in
> use in the field for some time and was known to be useful and
> workable.

 How would install-strip solve missing INSTALL_SCRIPT?  `Install -s' might
not work on scripts and with fileutils 4.1 it does not anymore, indeed.  I
suppose there are non-GNU install implementations that fail as well.

 Actually autoconf 2.13 as released has INSTALL_SCRIPT broken (it sets it
to INSTALL_PROGRAM instead of INSTALL) but 2.50 is fine.  IMHO, the
cleanest approach for default values would actually be: 


so that general executable installation options (such as permissions or an
owner) could be set in one place for both programs and scripts and
specific script or program options (such as "-s") could be set
independently.  This is an issue to be raised at the autoconf list and not
here, though. 

> I agree that having install-strip work efficiently is important.
> However I don't believe that it is more important than (1) getting 1.5
> out in a timely way (though I don't believe this will derail it either
> way), or (2) autoconf 2.13 support.

 That could be a post-1.5 item for sure.  What is now does actually work
and thus improving it is non-critical and interested parties (me included) 
might live with private patches, anyway.

> Maciej> Note that autoconf 2.13 isn't an issue anymore, I think.
> Maciej> Version 2.50 is already released.
> I disagree.  I believe that uptake of 2.50 will be slow and so
> continuing support for 2.13 is important.

 OK, it looked to me like automake/autoconf 1.4/2.13 and 1.5/2.50 are
intended pairs, especially as autoconf 2.13 is really old now.  I could
have been wrong, though.


+  Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland   +
+        e-mail: address@hidden, PGP key available        +

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]