Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 09:13:18 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Fileutils 4.0 port and ginstall
In-Reply-To: <3AA28F48.B29175EB@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010305091244.23825A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Richard Dawe wrote:

> OK, I've increased the number of cases where ginstall should DTRT.
> Unstubbed COFF, stubbed COFF and any MZ format executables are created
> with an .exe extension appended to the target filename. Since .com files
> don't have a header, they will be treated like ordinary files.

Sounds fine.

> One thing that worries me: should foo be created at the destination as
> well as foo.exe? That way we do what ginstall has been asked to do, as
> well as creating an executable that can be run by command.com, etc.

Please give specific examples of situations where this would be
useful.  What ginstall was asked to do was to install a file so that
it can be run from the command line without using its absolute path.
How is this done is totally up to us.  I've never seen any install
target in a Makefile which actually tests whether a file is created in
the target directory.