On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:41:08AM -0400, James Bowes wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 07:04:43PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> I almost hate to ask, but why are we differing from upstream here by
>> setting gitexecdir=%{_bindir}? Moving the git-* commands out of the
>> path has been on the agenda for git-1.6.0 for a long time. If distros
>> like Fedora and others just set gitexecdir like this we've effectively
>> negated upstream's intent to present less binaries in the users path.
>>
>> For those folks that want to continue using the git-* form, the simple
>> solution is to add $(git --exec-path) to PATH.
>>
>> If we want to not break anyone's scripts by default in the update to
>> git-1.6.0, we could add that to the PATH in the package rather than
>> keep all the git binaries in %{_bindir}. At least that way, those who
>> do not want or need all the extra commands there could just remove it
>> from their PATH. (Personally, I'd prefer to not even do that and
>> install git as closely to upstream as possible.)
>
>I did this because someone else complained about not using gitexecdir first.
>But it makes sense to me, since I have not yet done any due diligence to
>see what might break when we do move the git-* commands. So no worries,
>we will move the commands, but there's no real rush, is there?
Though an F-9 update will not. You just don't yank out commands like that
from a stable release. (And that is what the original complaint was about,
even though it wasn't like that in Fedora.)
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
