On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:26:54PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Would it be reasonable to make RUNTIME_PREFIX the default on systems > > where we _do_ have that support? AFAIK there is no downside to having it > > enabled (minus a few syscalls to find the prefix, I suppose, but I > > assume that's negligible). > > > > I.e., a patch to config.mak.uname (and possibly better support for > > _disabling_ it, though I think "make RUNTIME_PREFIX=" would probably > > work). > > The obvious downside is that we would be a lot more likely to break one > side of the equation. At least right now, we have Git for Windows being a > prime user of RUNTIME_PREFIX (so breakages should be caught relatively > quickly), and macOS/Linux *not* being users of that feature (so breakages > in the non-RUNTIME_PREFIX code paths should be caught even quicker). By > turning on RUNTIME_PREFIX for the major platforms, the fringe platforms > are even further out on their own. That's true. On the other hand, we have a zillion compat features for fringe platforms already, so there already is an expectation that people on those platforms would need to occasionally report and fix system-specific bugs. Perhaps thinking of it not as an feature to opt into, but rather as a compat for "your system has not caught up to the modern world by implementing RUNTIME_PREFIX" would encourage people on those platforms to implement the necessary scaffolding. I also have a gut feeling that it is much easier for static-path devs to break RUNTIME_PREFIX folks, rather than the other way around, simply because RUNTIME_PREFIX has a lot more moving parts. But I admit that's just a feeling. -Peff
