Message-Id: <200003061255.GAA19307@darwin.sfbr.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 06:55:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
Subject: Re: install -> ginstall symlink in fil316b
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-MD5: S6NdyX3glni4sXbmTFqW7A==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.4 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc 
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

-: So I think using
-: `ginstall' is better even without this bug.  (Why do you think all
-: Makefile's in ports of GNU utilities use ginstall? ;-)

OK, but another question arises.  I recently installed GNU fileutils
4.0 on my box at work; there it appears that an executable `ginstall'
is built, which is then installed as `install' to $(prefix)/bin.  There
is no `ginstall', not even as a symlink, in $(prefix)/bin.  This is why
my makefiles (which *did* use `ginstall') complained.