Re: testsuite portability nit

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> What was wrong with my proposed patch?
>
> I had some qualms with it, because it added coupling between the test
> cases and the rest of the code, by propagating BUILD_SRC_DIR and
> EXEEXT from the latter to the former.  Coupling like that places extra
...
> Jim may have other opinions, though.  Perhaps he'd prefer the approach
> of the original patch, in which case we should install that instead.

I wouldn't have objected to the original patch, but do see that
it would introduce the first use of $EXEEXT in a test script.

However, there is precedent for using $BUILD_SRC_DIR.
And since there are so few tests for install, I think it's a
little friendlier to the other-OS crowd not to skip those tests.
Who knows... maybe this test will someday help someone developing
on a non-Unix-like system to submit a better patch to install.c.