Re: nobase.test

[Peter O'Gorman]

On Sep 6, 2006, at 3:58 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> [ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2006-09/msg00001.html ]
>
> Hello Patrick,
>
> * Patrick Welche wrote on Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 01:30:26PM CEST:
> > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 09:33:20AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > I say we drop the test and require that install-sh be executable.
> > > After all, this is so much easier to do.
> > >
> > > OK to apply?
> >
> > Sounds good (I didn't understand the advantage of non-executable  
> > install-sh)
>
> I installed that, in the hope that neither Alexandre nor Peter  
> mind. ;-)


On a regular basis, I patch packages to use the autotools build  
system that did not originally do so. Our build system unpacks the  
original tarball and applies patches with patch. This means that  
scripts get created without execute bits, so the build fails. The  
idea of the test that Alexandre installed was to ensure that automake  
would be able to continue to run without executable bits being set,  
not so that the test could be removed when someone broke automake so  
that it no longer works without being executable.

Peter