Re: [PATCH 0/11] Miscellaneous MinGW port fallout

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 22:10, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Johannes Sixt <johannes.sixt@telecom.at> 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.