Re: git binary directory?
- From
Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
- Date
- Nov 6, 2005, 03:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200511060312.jA63CUcv010887@inti.inf.utfsm.cl>
- In-Reply-To
- <junkio@cox.net>
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes: > > Now, I happen to think that 2500+ files in /usr/bin is a bit much (ever > > try to use the horrid gnome executable finder on it when you want to > > convince firefox to use xpdf instead of that broken crap called "evince"? > > Takes absolutely ages and is horrible). > > > > And git made it about 4% worse all on its own.
[...]
> Since we do not have enough clout to have /usr/bin/git/ and ask > the users to put that in their PATH like X11 does,
That is going away. No more /usr/X11R6/{bin,lib,man} junk.> we need to > teach some of our commands that use other git commands to > prepend /usr/lib/git/ (or /usr/libexec/git)
AFAIU, /usr/libexec/git (or /usr/libexec/git-<version>) would be better. Including the version would make it possible to have the last stable and a development version coexisting, like gcc does with -V. Or its -B option, which tells it where to find the executables that do the real work.
Show 5 quoted lines
> on their PATH while > they run. Although many of the Porcelainish commands include > git-sh-setup, git-sh-setup itself is a prime candidate to be > kicked out of /usr/bin, which means essentially everything needs > to have that PATH trick.
> This also is a bit inconvenient for our in-source-tree tests.
Explicitly saying where to find all the stuff with -B would help here.
The only downside is that git-<TAB> won't find them anymore, but I'm sure the bash-completion people will fix that soon ;-)
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513