Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> What was wrong with my proposed patch? > > I had some qualms with it, because it added coupling between the test > cases and the rest of the code, by propagating BUILD_SRC_DIR and > EXEEXT from the latter to the former. Coupling like that places extra ... > Jim may have other opinions, though. Perhaps he'd prefer the approach > of the original patch, in which case we should install that instead.
I wouldn't have objected to the original patch, but do see that it would introduce the first use of $EXEEXT in a test script. However, there is precedent for using $BUILD_SRC_DIR. And since there are so few tests for install, I think it's a little friendlier to the other-OS crowd not to skip those tests. Who knows... maybe this test will someday help someone developing on a non-Unix-like system to submit a better patch to install.c. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
