On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2006-09/msg00001.html ]
Hello Patrick,
* Patrick Welche wrote on Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:30:26PM CEST:
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 09:33:20AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I say we drop the test and require that install-sh be executable.
After all, this is so much easier to do.
OK to apply?
Sounds good (I didn't understand the advantage of non-executable
install-sh)
I installed that, in the hope that neither Alexandre nor Peter
mind. ;-)
On a regular basis, I patch packages to use the autotools build
system that did not originally do so. Our build system unpacks the
original tarball and applies patches with patch. This means that
scripts get created without execute bits, so the build fails. The
idea of the test that Alexandre installed was to ensure that automake
would be able to continue to run without executable bits being set,
not so that the test could be removed when someone broke automake so
that it no longer works without being executable.
Peter
