[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: install(1): Options for handling symlinks

From: Alejandro Colomar
Subject: Re: install(1): Options for handling symlinks
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 01:53:12 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0

Hi Pádraig,

On 3/9/23 21:38, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 09/03/2023 16:31, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm working on the Linux man-pages Makefile, so that users can select
>> if they want their link manual pages (e.g., sprintf(3), which is just
>> a link to printf(3)) as symlinks or .so files (not shared objects, but
>> roff(7) files with a .so request; similar to C's #include).  Until now,
>> we only provided them as .so files, but many systems want their pages
>> as symlinks, so I'm trying to make it easy for them.
>> That should be easy: build the symlinks, and then install them.
>> However, that seems to be incompatible with install(1), which I've
>> been using until now.  It can't install a symlink --it follows it, and
>> copies the real file--.  Would it make sense to you to add some flag(s)
>> to do something similar to what cp(1) can do?  Otherwise, I should
>> replace install(1) with cp(1) + chmod(1), but I would prefer to use
>> install(1) in the Makefile, I think.
> There was a previous proposal to support --preserve,

Did that proposal include a patch, or should I write one?

> which would support this with --preserve=links.
> It's not a very requested feature though,
> but also not that invasive to implement.



> cheers,
> Pádraig

GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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