Date:	Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:15:56 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Jeff Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: install -> ginstall symlink in fil316b
In-Reply-To:	<200003061255.GAA19307@darwin.sfbr.org>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000306161018.12285D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:

> -: So I think using
> -: `ginstall' is better even without this bug.  (Why do you think all
> -: Makefile's in ports of GNU utilities use ginstall? ;-)
> 
> OK, but another question arises.  I recently installed GNU fileutils
> 4.0 on my box at work;

What box?  Is it Unix/Linux or DOS/Windows?

> there it appears that an executable `ginstall'
> is built, which is then installed as `install' to $(prefix)/bin.  There
> is no `ginstall', not even as a symlink, in $(prefix)/bin.

On Unix, there's a special option of the configure script whereby you can 
specify the prefix to be prepended to each command at install time.

For the DJGPP release, I simply modified the Makefile to produce several 
symlinks for commands that might conflict with native DOS/Windows names 
(like dir, rmdir, etc.).  The Makefile is changed by the configure script 
tweaked by config.bat included in the ported source package, which see.
Since Fileutils 4.0 were not ported yet, you don't see all that magic in 
the official FSF distro.

> This is why
> my makefiles (which *did* use `ginstall') complained.

So what prevents you from creating those symlinks by hand?

- Raw text -