Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 13 2021, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >
> >> This patch series introduces the concept of extra components. These are
> >> components which are not yet part of the core but are good enough for
> >> distributions to ship, and in fact, they already do.
> >
> > I like this direction.
>
> I do not mind change, but it is fuzzy to me what direction you are
> in favor of. Is the gist of the idea to split what is in contrib/
> into two bins, ones that are closer to "official" and others? If
> so, I see sort-of merit in such a distinction, but whom is this
> trying to help?
Everyone.
1. People who download the source code and want to install git in a
similar way to how distributions do it
2. Developers who have no idea what's good in contrib/
3. Distribution packagers who want to know what's good enough to be
distributed, and don't want to manually copy files (i.e. all
distribution packagers)
> Distros would rather see what they use unmoved, and would not care
> where those that they do not use move to, I would imagine.
That is not true.
Distributions do not want to decide where to place
`contrib/completion/git-prompt.sh`, they want the git project to decide.
Obviously it has to be under '/usr/share/', preferably
'/usr/share/$project' (i.e. not /usr/share/git-core), but other than
that they do not care.
> So I suspect that it would help them more if we kept the ones that are
> closer to "official" in contrib/ and moved the rest to a new
> hierarchy?
Sure, that would help, but they still would want an install-contrib target.
A distribution packager that is maintaining 20 packages (or more)
doesn't want to keep track where every single file of her every
single package goes. She just wants to do `make install` and be done
with it. Any package that requires to manually copy some files to the
destination is simply a hassle to maintain.
--
Felipe Contreras
