GNU bug report logs - #10619
BUG compilando install.c

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 10619 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 10619 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lobo Oscuro <lobooscuro1 <at> live.com.ar>
To: <bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org>
Subject: BUG compilando install.c
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:09:26 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

  Se necesita el ejecutable ./install pero mirando los pasos en ningun momento compila install.c y no se obtiene el ejecutable para ser instalado en /usr/local/bin/install , se necesita los ejecutables ./install y ./install-info para continuar con la instalacion del mismo paquete:

 /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 ./coreutils.info '/usr/local/share/info'
 install-info --info-dir='/usr/local/share/info' '/usr/local/share/info/coreutils.info'

  Mirando la documentacion no dice nada relacionado con eso. Pero estoy seguro que asi como ese hay muchos archivos que no son compilados porque hay mas codigos fuentes que ejecutables compilados.
 		 	   		  

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #12 received at 10619-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: Lobo Oscuro <lobooscuro1 <at> live.com.ar>
Cc: 10619-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10619: BUG compilando install.c
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 06:42:25 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 10619 notabug
thanks

On 01/26/2012 07:09 PM, Lobo Oscuro wrote:

Apologies that I am replying in English; while I can mostly read
Spanish, I am not fluent enough to compose a reply in that language.

> 
>   Se necesita el ejecutable ./install pero mirando los pasos en ningun momento compila install.c y no se obtiene el ejecutable para ser instalado en /usr/local/bin/install , se necesita los ejecutables ./install y ./install-info para continuar con la instalacion del mismo paquete:
> 
>  /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 ./coreutils.info '/usr/local/share/info'
>  install-info --info-dir='/usr/local/share/info' '/usr/local/share/info/coreutils.info'

Those two command lines do _not_ imply that you need ./install nor
./install-info (that is, executables found in your current working
directory), but rather the version of 'install' and 'install-info' as
found via a $PATH search.  You probably never want to run './install' or
'./install-info', but should instead run 'install' (for a PATH search)
or '/usr/bin/install' (for an absolute path of the installed binary).

> 
>   Mirando la documentacion no dice nada relacionado con eso. Pero estoy seguro que asi como ese hay muchos archivos que no son compilados porque hay mas codigos fuentes que ejecutables compilados.
>  		 	   		  

I'm assuming that you are using a GNU/Linux system, in which case it is
safe to assume that these two programs (install is from coreutils,
install-info is from info) are pre-installed and that your PATH is
probably already set up to use them.  There's generally no need to
rebuild a local copy of either of these applications into your current
working directory.

I will go ahead and close out this bug report, but we can reopen it if
you can provide more information relevant to the situation, or even a
suggestion of where to make a documentation patch that would have helped
you out in the first place.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake <at> redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.