Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hmm, "missing" _fakes_ a given program (with touch, etc.) whereas
> mkinstalldirs, install-sh, etc. are the real thing, but implemented
> in shell.  I don't think these things should be mixed up.

The idea of `missing' is to ensure that an installation completes in adverse
conditions, the best it could be.  If `missing' can fake a missing program
by doing its job, this is absolutely fine.  If it does less usually, this
is because I was too lazy to do it whole (also granted that the effort
of _not_ having been lazy would often have been inordinate :-).  So, if
`missing' ever replaces `install-sh' and `mkinstalldirs', this should be
seen as a good thing, absolutely in the spirit of the design of `missing'.

-- 
François Pinard   http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard


Reply via email to