From: Horst von Brand Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:12:30 GMT Subject: Re: git binary directory? Message-ID: <200511060312.jA63CUcv010887@inti.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Linus Torvalds 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-) 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. > 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- 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