On Samstag, 19. Juli 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Take as an example 'git pull'. > > > > - The first call to git will derive the exec-path > > $prefix/bin/../libexec/git-core and prepend it to $PATH. > > > > - Calls to builtin git commands from inside 'git pull' will then derive > > the exec-path $prefix/bin/../libexec/git-core/../libexec/git-core, that > > is $prefix/libexec/libexec/git-core, and prepend it to $PATH as well. > > That directory does not exist - usually - and it does not hurt. But it > > feels dirty and potentially dangerous. > > You run "git" with an argument "pull". It needs to figure out where > "git-pull" is, it checks where it came from and adds ../libexec/git-core/. > Then it runs "git-pull" script. > > Then the script may have a call to "git ls-files -u" or "git-merge". > > - The former case, "git" again needs to find out where "git-ls-files" > is. > > If "git" is found as bin/git and not as libexec/git-core/git, this > should be perfectly fine, isn't it? Perhaps we install a duplicate > copy there by mistake, which is what we need to fix? Yes, there's libexec/git-core/git. There reason might be that the install target is simpler to write (to create the hardlinks) just in case $(bindir) and $(gitexecdir) are not on the same mount. > - The latter case (our scripts source git-sh-setup so they have libexec > one in the PATH when they are started) would find "git-merge" directly > and runs it. > > In either case, the programs "git-ls-files" and "git-merge" do not need to > do the same discovery -- are we giving them enough clues when we run them > to let them avoid that? Probably the only clue is the name itself, like Steffen proposed. I'll see how I can improve my earlier exec-path patch series. -- 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
