Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In particular INSTALL_SYMLINKS=Y will result in a link tree like:
>
> bin/git
> libexec/git -> ../bin/git
> libexec/git-add -> ../bin/git
>
> Whereas NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS=Y in cases where the "ln" would fail would result in:
>
> bin/git
> libexec/git
> libexec/git-add -> git
>
> I.e. we duplicated the "git" between the bin/ and libexec/
> directories (by default they're hardlinked), and potentially had had
> e.g. "git-add" pointing at the libexec/git hardlink (or more likely if
> "ln" is failing, a copy), instead of the bin/git.
>
> Now we'll instead use the same symlinks to point to the bindir. I
> don't see any reason not to do so, and no breakage related to this has
> been reported with INSTALL_SYMLINKS in all this time. I just did it
> this way to maintain bug-for-bug compatibility at the time.
Makes sense. I do not see a reason why libexec/git-add that points
at ../bin/git would cause problems, either.
> +# Define NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS if you'd like to have programs in bin/
> +# and libexec/ either symlinked (we try with INSTALL_SYMLINKS first),
> +# or if that fails fall back on a "cp" instead of a "ln". Useful for
> +# when you don't want hardlinks at all.
So without INSTALL_SYMLINKS and with NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS, the only
remaining choice is "cp". With both set, we favour "ln -s" over
"cp" and do not allow "ln". With INSTALL_SYMLINKS and without
NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS, we try "ln -s", "ln" and finally "cp". With
neither, we try "ln" and fall back to "cp"?
That precedence order does make sense.
> @@ -3019,33 +3020,30 @@ endif
> } && \
> for p in $(filter $(install_bindir_programs),$(BUILT_INS)); do \
> $(RM) "$$bindir/$$p" && \
> - test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" && \
> + test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" -o "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
I had an impression that we avoid -o/-a used with "test" (instead
we'd use "test && test" or "test || test")?
In either case, if we are told to favor "ln -s", or told not to use
"ln", we try "ln -s"? That does not make much sense to me, though.
What do I need to do if I do not ever want symbolic links? Is it
impossible now?
> ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" || \
> { test -z "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
> ln "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> - ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> cp "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" || exit; }; \
> done && \
> for p in $(BUILT_INS); do \
> $(RM) "$$execdir/$$p" && \
> if test -z "$(SKIP_DASHED_BUILT_INS)"; \
> then \
> - test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" && \
> + test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" -o "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
Perhaps the same comment applies here and to the next hunk, too?
> ln -s "$$destdir_from_execdir_SQ/$(bindir_relative_SQ)/git$X" "$$execdir/$$p" || \
> { test -z "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
> ln "$$execdir/git$X" "$$execdir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> - ln -s "git$X" "$$execdir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> cp "$$execdir/git$X" "$$execdir/$$p" || exit; }; \
> fi \
> done && \
> remote_curl_aliases="$(REMOTE_CURL_ALIASES)" && \
> for p in $$remote_curl_aliases; do \
> $(RM) "$$execdir/$$p" && \
> - test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" && \
> + test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" -o "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
> ln -s "git-remote-http$X" "$$execdir/$$p" || \
> { test -z "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
> ln "$$execdir/git-remote-http$X" "$$execdir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> - ln -s "git-remote-http$X" "$$execdir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> cp "$$execdir/git-remote-http$X" "$$execdir/$$p" || exit; } \
> done && \
> ./check_bindir "z$$bindir" "z$$execdir" "$$bindir/git-add$X"
