Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:50:16 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Maurice Lombardi cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: bug in ginstall under bash ? In-Reply-To: <37CB054F.2DF24B93@ujf-grenoble.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk 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.