If I may add my opinion,

> >>>>> "Timekeeper" == Timekeeper  <Erik> writes:
> 
>     Timekeeper> I reread the PR. The PR talks about installation, not "make
>     all".
> 
>   Erik, try building a new tool chain that uses something new from libutil
> or libc without doing "make install". This was particularly bad during
> 1.2G to release. Maybe it will be better before 1.4, but I don't expect so.
> 
>     Timekeeper> I'm curious to know how you propose to put the correct file ownerships in
>     Timekeeper> place *after* installation of those binaries, if not done at install-time?
>     Timekeeper> There are quite a few setuid binaries which won't even work without the right
>     Timekeeper> owner or group on them.

[skipped]

>   To a second approximation, I'd rather that install recorded the permissions
> in something like the mtree system, and then one ran "mtree" to set the right
> permissions after a distribution is made. If only we could mount vnd's 
> as non-root, then we'd be able to building everything without root!

Another case where you do not want to set user/group immediately on
installed binaries is during cross-compilation. Other system (SunOS in
my case) do not have the correct users/groups so installing them made
no sence. I had to comment out all chown statements in *.mk files to
let the make process go smoothly. I did nothing to restore the correct
owner/permissions for installed files and I still have not finished
upgrading my system. So, I would too appreciate the ability to run 
'make install' into the appropriate DESTDIR without changing the
owner/group of the installed files.

	Taras Ivanenko.