From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Fileutils 4.0 port and ginstall
Date:	Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:58:51 +0100
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIKEEPCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-Reply-To:	<3AA3F8D7.30E78753@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Importance:	Normal
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> But if you've never seen anything that does check that 'src' has been
> copied to 'dest', then it's probably OK. I admit it does seem like a
> stange thing to do - you'd expect ginstall to return an error code if it
> failed.
> 
> Maybe I worry too much sometimes. 8)

I suppose a Makefile could have

install: ${datadir}/mydatafile ${bindir}/myprogram

${datadir}/mydatafile: mydatafile
	${INSTALL} -m 644 $< $@

${bindir}/myprogram: myprogram
	${INSTALL} -m 755 $< $@

In this case, make install would always copy the program.  But as long as
such a construct isn't used as part of the build process, that's probably
ok (people probably don't run 'make install' more than once).

- Raw text -