Re: [dev] Is there a reason to use install(1)?

[2010-05-29 18:15] Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com>
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 11:56:26PM +0200, markus schnalke wrote:
> >[2010-05-29 23:46] Moritz Wilhelmy <crap_AT_wzff.de>
> >> > Very often I see makefile use install(1) when cp, mkdir, chmod, and
> >> > Co. would be equally compact.
> >>
> >> Consider
> >>
> >> install -D -m755 -u foo -g bar foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
> >>
> >> vs.
> >>
> >> mkdir -p $DESTDIR/usr/bin
> >> cp foo.sh $DESTDIR/usr/bin
> >> chmod 755 $DESTDIR/usr/bin/foo.sh
> >> chown foo:bar $DESTDIR/usr/bin/foo.sh
> >>
> >> and tell me about "equally compact" again...
> >
> >I know about such cases, but this is not the common case, at least as
> >far as I've seen it.
> >
> >
> >You mean, install is just meant as a wrapper around the standard tools
> >to express the actions in a more compact way. (btw: It's a shame that
> >install isn't a shell script then.)
>
> But it is the common case. At the very least copying and setting
> the permissions is the common case, mkdir is very common, and
> the chown comes about often enough. When you have to install a
> half dozen different files, it adds up. And it's definitely
> nearly universally available (except on Plan 9) despite not
> being defined by POSIX, but you're right about the
> incompatibilities-though they don't really matter if you don't
> try anything fancy.

Thanks for the explanations.

meillo
Received on Sun May 30 2010 - 07:23:55 UTC