Re: Why don't we symlink libexec/git-core/* to bin/git?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Is the only reason we're still installing these binaries like git-add in
> libexec for compatibility with some old installation where that was
> added to the $PATH, shouldn't we (and I can write this patch) also have
> a toggle for "I want the modern install method" which would not install
> any of these binaries like git-add at all?
>
> Then the libexec/ dir would only contain things that we really do need
> the bin/git to dispatch to, like git-svn, git-bisect etc.

Removing them by default was proposed and failed; see this thread
for example:

  https://public-inbox.org/git/7vr68b8q9p.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/#t

If a packager ships Git without these copies in libexec, that is not
the Git that promised users that prepending the $(git --exec-path)
aka GIT_EXEC_PATH to your $PATH is a valid way to preserve their
older script.

I do not think anybody actually minds to have an option to omit them
as long as the users understand the consequence (i.e. old promises
broken) and know they are not affected (i.e. they do not have
scripts that rely on the old promise).



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux