Re: [PATCH] add simple install replacement

[Robert Schiele <rschiele@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2806 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 04:06:47PM +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 23:52:37 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
> > This patch adds a very simple install replacement script to git.
> > This allows more easy installation on systems that don't have a
> > compatible install.
> 
> Do you have a particular case where you need it?

We have some machines here where no compatible install was installed.  Sure I
could have built GNU coreutils on all of them but writing this script was just
more convenient for me.

> No such thing here:
> zsh$ /bin/sh
> $ which getopts
> $
> 
> Yes, bash and zsh do have that, but my (and I suspect many git users')
> /bin/sh is neither of those. Git scripts should use just POSIX shell
> features for portability.

I just used it because the shells on my machines had it.  My idea was that if
someone has a shell with less features we could still replace parts with even
more basic ways of doing things.

> You may want to have a look at /usr/share/automake-1.9/install-sh (or
> /usr/share/automake<something>/install-sh). It shows how to portably process
> options in shell and since it's in fact covered by the MIT/X license (and FSF
> changes are public domain), git could just use it if necessary.

Oh, forgot about that implementation.  Since this version is definitely more
advanced I retract my patch and propose to use that one instead.

> Are you sure reall install would do this? The maual (install(1)) states
> following usage variants:
> 
>     install [OPTION]... [-T] SOURCE DEST
>     install [OPTION]... SOURCE... DIRECTORY
>     install [OPTION]... -t DIRECTORY SOURCE...
>     install [OPTION]... -d DIRECTORY...

I did not intend to write a full replacement for install but cover only the
cases needed to install git.

> Now however there is nothing saying that SOURCE... is at least two, so is
> 
>     install git /usr/bin
> 
> a case of the first or second usage? I would say the second, but your code
> would:
> 
>     rm -rf /usr/bin
>     cp git /usr/bin

No, in your example /usr/bin is a directory and thus this is:

rm -rf /usr/bin/git
cp git /usr/bin

>     touch "foo*bar" "a b c"
>     ./gitinstall "b*c" "a b c" /tmp
> 
> ... will copy a lot of files to /tmp (presuming we are in git source
> directory, where tons of files are called builtin-<something>.c) and complain
> that there is no 'a', no 'b' and no 'c'.

There are no files with special characters in git to be installed.  Again this
was meant a _simple_ replacement for install on systems without a compatible
install just to install _git_, not to reinvent the wheel.

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker	mailto:rschiele@gmail.com

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]