Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:07:24 +0500
Message-Id: <200004261707.WAA01217@envy.com>
From: Prashant TR <prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200004261104.HAA23659@indy.delorie.com> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Wed, 26 Apr 2000 07:04:00 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: Sh-utils 2.0g uploaded
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000425113929 DOT 23128V-100000 AT is> <200004251527 DOT UAA00797 AT midpec DOT com> <200004261104 DOT HAA23659 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>
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
Precedence: bulk

> Is chmod run *before* or *after* copying su into the destination
> directory?
> 
> If it's run before the copy, it _should_ work, since you should have
> both su and su.exe.

After, and that's why I get this problem.

> An alternative would be to change the rule in the Makefile to use the
> ..exe extension explicitly.  AFAIK, the case you are describing is the
> only one when this is an issue, so it might as well have a specific,
> rather than general, solution.

Fixing this wasn't really much of a problem. Presently, I can't think of
another case where there exists such problems. But I thought it might be
logical for chown to do that (just in the same manner as how ginstall only
copies the exe). Maybe its worth looking into it if more problems like this
come up.