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
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

> 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).