On Thursday 15 November 2007 21:10, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007, at 7:31 PM, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > On Thursday 15 November 2007 07:53, Steffen Prohaska wrote: > >> Now I'm wondering if we could make path relocation a bit more > >> explicit. How about doing something like. > >> > >> system_wide = relocate_path(ETC_GITCONFIG); > >> > >> and relocate_path(const char *) would expand a format > >> string in path. At this point I see only a single %s > >> that would be expanded with the install prefix. If > >> ETC_GITCONFIG is "%s/etc/gitconfig" relocate path will return > >> "C:/msysgit/bin/etc/gitconfig" for my above example. It is > >> basically a printf with the install prefix path. > > > > I don't see the problem that you are trying to solve. > > Path relocation would be more explicit: > 1) Paths that need to be relocated are filtered through > relocate_path(). That's easy to understand. > 2) All the code prefixing the path is in relocate_path(). > This avoids code duplication. > 3) Path that should be relocated contain "%s" in the Makefile. > This indicates that some string expansion may take place. > > (1) and (2) would be useful even if you do not agree with (3). > The code in PATCH 9/11 and PATCH 11/11 looks very similar. > If the prefixing code went into a separate function, we'd > have less code. Also, relocate_path() could be useful at > other places. For example, I'd use it to locate the HTML > documentation relative to the installation directory. How is %s/foo different from ../foo? There are only 2 paths that need to be relocatable. Your proposal is over-engineering, IMHO. -- 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
