On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 10:08:25PM -0700, J. Mallett wrote: > * From "Steven G. Kargl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > J. Mallett said: > > > * From "Steven G. Kargl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > J. Mallett said: > > > > > > > > No. The third patch is correct (see below); otherwise I could set > > > > INSTALL to " install -C" QED. > > > > > > And I could set BINOWN to something bogus. > > > > > > Don't protect the user by removing functionality. > > > > Well, if the first patch is acceptable, then we would > > be restoring documented functionality; otherwise, > > rev 1.55 of xinstall.c will remove functionality. > > Add the word "meaningful" before "functionality" in my statement, and realise > that overriding such things should ALWAYS be something you can do. Consider > cross-builds, and so on. > --
I don't really care which patches are applied. One patch fixes install(1) and the other set of patches augments the current breakage in install(1). Either set of patches is acceptable to me, while the current state of affairs is unacceptable in general. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
