On Tuesday 13 November 2007 22:46, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 22:10, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 21:04, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > > >> [PATCH 09/11] Allow a relative builtin template directory. > > > >> [PATCH 10/11] Introduce git_etc_gitconfig() that encapsulates access > > > >> of ETC_GITCONFIG. > > > >> [PATCH 11/11] Allow ETC_GITCONFIG to be a relative path. > > > >> > > > >> These need probably some discussion. They avoid that $(prefix) is > > > >> hardcoded and so allows that an arbitrary installation directory. > > > > > > > > ... and so allow that the compiled binaries are installed in any > > > > directory that the user chooses. > > > > > > If you can do that without breaking the tests (specifically, the > > > test script should pick up the version of git you just built, > > > not from /usr/bin nor /usr/local/stow/git/bin) that would be > > > great. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand your statement. Do you see any tests breaking? > > I guess what Junio is getting at: if your changes could lead to our not > needing to hard code defaults, that would be awesome. > > For example, a very unhappy camper reported recently that installing git > with a different prefix triggers a complete rebuild. [PATCH 10/11] is one step into this direction. -- Hannes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
