PATCH: Use $(SHELL) when running mkinstalldirs

PATCH: Use $(SHELL) when running mkinstalldirs

[Ian Lance Taylor]

A GNU Makefile should always use $(SHELL) when running a shell
script.  The gdb Makefile.in fails to do this when running
mkinstalldirs in the install-only target, although it does do it in
other places.

Here is a patch.

Ian

2003-05-13  Ian Lance Taylor  <ian@airs.com>

	* Makefile.in (install-only): Use $(SHELL) when running
	mkinstalldirs.


Index: Makefile.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/Makefile.in,v
retrieving revision 1.375
diff -u -r1.375 Makefile.in
--- Makefile.in	12 May 2003 00:26:18 -0000	1.375
+++ Makefile.in	14 May 2003 06:14:21 -0000
@@ -935,10 +935,10 @@
 		else \
 		  true ; \
 		fi ; \
-		$(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs $(bindir) ; \
+		$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs $(bindir) ; \
 		$(INSTALL_PROGRAM) gdb$(EXEEXT) \
 			$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$$transformed_name$(EXEEXT) ; \
-		$(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs \
+		$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs \
 			$(DESTDIR)$(man1dir) ; \
 		$(INSTALL_DATA) $(srcdir)/gdb.1 \
 			$(DESTDIR)$(man1dir)/$$transformed_name.1

Re: PATCH: Use $(SHELL) when running mkinstalldirs

[Andrew Cagney]

I"m guessing that this is an [RFA], rather than a [commit].  Yes, ok.

BTW, Makefile and configure go under the loosely defined comment ``do 
you feel lucky?''.  There is no one explicitly responsible for this 
section of GDB.  Instead it's left to peoples judgment (typically the 
only way to test this is to commit it) - post one day, commit one or few 
later (or earlier if its pretty obvious :-).

Andrew



> A GNU Makefile should always use $(SHELL) when running a shell
> script.  The gdb Makefile.in fails to do this when running
> mkinstalldirs in the install-only target, although it does do it in
> other places.
> 
> Here is a patch.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 2003-05-13  Ian Lance Taylor  <ian@airs.com>
> 
> 	* Makefile.in (install-only): Use $(SHELL) when running
> 	mkinstalldirs.
> 
> 
> Index: Makefile.in
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/Makefile.in,v
> retrieving revision 1.375
> diff -u -r1.375 Makefile.in
> --- Makefile.in	12 May 2003 00:26:18 -0000	1.375
> +++ Makefile.in	14 May 2003 06:14:21 -0000
> @@ -935,10 +935,10 @@
>  		else \
>  		  true ; \
>  		fi ; \
> -		$(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs $(bindir) ; \
> +		$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs $(bindir) ; \
>  		$(INSTALL_PROGRAM) gdb$(EXEEXT) \
>  			$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$$transformed_name$(EXEEXT) ; \
> -		$(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs \
> +		$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../mkinstalldirs \
>  			$(DESTDIR)$(man1dir) ; \
>  		$(INSTALL_DATA) $(srcdir)/gdb.1 \
>  			$(DESTDIR)$(man1dir)/$$transformed_name.1
> 

Re: PATCH: Use $(SHELL) when running mkinstalldirs

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

> I"m guessing that this is an [RFA], rather than a [commit].  Yes, ok.

Thanks.

I missed the Subject line conventions somehow.  Are they written down
anywhere?

Ian

Re: PATCH: Use $(SHELL) when running mkinstalldirs

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> I"m guessing that this is an [RFA], rather than a [commit].  Yes, ok.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I missed the Subject line conventions somehow.  Are they written down
> anywhere?

No.  But then people don't have to follow them.  It's just that 
``patch'' has been found to be too ambigious :-)

Andrew

Re: PATCH: Use $(SHELL) when running mkinstalldirs

[David Carlton]

On 14 May 2003 09:12:58 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> said:

> I missed the Subject line conventions somehow.  Are they written
> down anywhere?

Hmm, we should put this in gdbint.texi or in MAINTAINERS or
somewhere.  Anyways:

RFA: request for approval.  Always include this if your patch needs
approval, and Cc: the appropriate maintainer(s).

RFC: request for comments.  This is typically used when you have some
big plan that you want comments on before you generate detailed
patches.  (Or when you have patches that work but aren't as elegant as
you'd like.)

PATCH: This is typically used for patches that don't require approval,
either because the submitter can approve them or because they're
simple enough to qualify as obvious.

If patches are for the testsuite or for the documentation, people
frequently indicate that as well: e.g. [rfa/testsuite].  Also,
sometimes people say [patch rfc] for patches that they can approve
themselves but that they wouldn't mind another set of eyes to look
over.  And if your patch is for a branch instead of mainline, then you
include the name of the branch instead of or in addition to "patch".

Andrew has started to use "commit" for patches that are being
committed immediately.  Personally, I usually post my (non-branch)
patches a day or two before committing them, and I leave the same
subject line when I post a message saying that I've actually commited
the patch, so I don't use "commit".

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu