[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how to detect broken install-sh?
From: |
Robert Collins |
Subject: |
Re: how to detect broken install-sh? |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:40:31 +1000 |
On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 16:00 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> > I suggest dropping install-sh completely except for the coreutils
> > package. coreutils is very portable, so its not unreasonable to require
> > that it is installed to locally build and install other packages.
> > coreutils of course cannot depend on itself being installed. A more
>
> This seems like a pretty unreasonable requirement to me. The
> install-sh strategy has been working for quite a long time with hardly
> any complaint until today.
The landscape has changed though, and I suspect that if we gather stats
about this we'll see that install-sh is dead weight for most packages
nearly all of the time.
Its true that it is not a lot of dead weight, but at some point we
should be raising the bar - ever so slightly - on what we bundle into
the tarball. At one point we never required a Make implementation that
does includes, now we do [for dependency tracking] - and sure we degrade
well.
All I'm suggesting is that the time has come to let folk on the small
proportion of machines without a sufficiently useful install, build it -
exactly as they have to build any other dependency they are lacking.
BTW, on solaris, /usr/ucb/install is apparently the right thing to use,
and has been there since SunOS 5.10 Last Revised 14 Sep 1992 :).
-Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part