From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed autoconf change: rip out search for 'install' |
Date: | 1998-12-08 01:37:37 |
Message-ID: | 7409.913081057@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> Anyway, Tom, do you think that the AC_PROG_INSTALL function might help
> on the HP? If so, we've probably stressed it pretty good...
AC_PROG_INSTALL would solve the problem on HP --- one of the ad hoc
tests that it uses is to ignore /etc/install and /usr/sbin/install,
which are the two places that that program might live on HP. (BTW,
AC_PROG_INSTALL's comments refer to this as SysV install, so I think
you are being unfairly hard on HP to blame them for the lack of
compatibility. They *are* being compatible ... with SysV. And
normal users don't put either of those directories into PATH.)
I don't *know* of any cases where AC_PROG_INSTALL would fail, and
certainly it's pretty widely used. I'm just being paranoid because
it has no way to directly test what the install program really does ---
it is using a bunch of ad-hoc rules to guess whether a program it finds
is likely to be BSD-compatible or not. That's not my idea of how a
reliable autoconfiguration test ought to work.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-12-08 04:19:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Date/time on glibc2 linux |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-12-08 01:29:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposed autoconf change: rip out search for 'install' |