delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/08/31/23:40:24

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:50:16 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Maurice Lombardi <Maurice DOT Lombardi AT ujf-grenoble DOT fr>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: bug in ginstall under bash ?
In-Reply-To: <37CB054F.2DF24B93@ujf-grenoble.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990831094953.9517N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Maurice Lombardi wrote:

> > Do you actually have ginstall.exe in the /bin directory on the current
> > drive?
> 
> yes. the djgpp directory is at root level in the F: drive. ginstall.exe is in
> its %DJGPP%/bin subdirectory, and the package to compile and install is in a
> subdirectory of %DJGPP%/contrib.

This is not /bin, this is %DJDIR%/bin.  It's not the same: "/bin"
means literally that.

> > The correct solution is to configure the package so that INSTALL is
> > replaced with "${DJDIR}/bin/ginstall -c".  Then it will work
> > regardless.
>
> In this case it would be wise that running the configure script
> produced by the autoconf script of djgpp do that automatically.

Usually, a configure script searches for an install program along the
PATH and uses that.  If in your case it fails to find it, perhaps that
is the *real* problem.  Or maybe the script doesn't look for it, in
which case it's a bug in the script (or in configure.in from which it
is generated).

Or am I missing something?

> An other oddity found when looking around. Trying to run install, which is a
> symlink to ginstall, did not work.

This is a known bug.  The port of GNU Fileutils was produced with an
old version of DJGPP; newer versions of DJGPP solve that bug, but no
one had time yet to make a newer port of Fileutils.

> Making a fresh symlink, it works.

Yes, because you used a newer DJGPP version.  The bug is in the stub
loader, and it only raises its ugly head when the target of the
``symlink'' has exactly 8 characters in the file name before the .exe
part ("ginstall" is exactly 8 characters).

> Finally an other inconvenience, only when porting an unix script, is that
> ginstall do not add automatically the suffix .exe to the executables.

I don't understand.  Are you telling that "ginstall foo /bin/foo" does
NOT produce /bin/foo.exe?  It should; it does for me.  Please post the
details.

> Many thanks for your work in any case

You are welcome.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019