On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 09:19:32PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: >On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 19:32 +0000, Vladimir Dronnikov wrote: >> I wish someone heard you, Roy. install -D is used heavily by >> buildroot, but I'm not so advanced in Makefiles to cope this by
Ahem, i fear that at least some of them were added by /me Since install(1) is not in SUS, i was not aware that the -D is uncommon. >> myself. And buildrooters seem to be quite happy with current state of >> things. I have to spoil my build system with glibc and with upstream >> install to move on. I suppose that in the light of this alleged GNU "extension" ¹) buildroot should use something different than -D per default, and ... >> And what about some other GNU-isms that were successfully infiltrated >> into BB? Simply, when coded, -D should be FEATUREd and should be >> cleanly compilable-out. > >True enough I suppose ... implement a -D for install. I'll look into it as soon as time permits. Thanks for the heads up! cheers, _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
