Re: [BUG] `make install' partly ignores `NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS'
- From
Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 17, 2020, 17:06 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20200817170607.GA16630@danh.dev>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq8sed445k.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
On 2020-08-17 09:40:23-0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 46 quoted lines
> Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 2020-08-14 10:26:24-0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > Since both git-citool and git-gui will be installed into same
> >> > directory "$(libexecdir)", I think it would make more sense to use:
> >> >
> >> > LN = ln -s
> >> >
> >> > here instead?
> >>
> >> In the top-level Makefile, INSTALL_SYMLINKS make macro does exist,
> >> but it is not exported to submakes. If it were, something like
> >>
> >> ifdef INSTALL_SYMLINKS
> >> LN = ln -s
> >> else
> >> ifdef NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS
> >> LN = cp
> >> else
> >> LN = ln
> >> endif
> >> endif
> >>
> >> might become possible, but you'd need to audit what is fed to $(LN)
> >> at the locations the macro is used and make necessary adjustment
> >> accordingly. "cp A ../B" or "ln A ../B" will make a usable copy of
> >> file A appear inside ../B directory, but "ln -s A ../B" will not,
> >> and I didn't see if all uses of $(LN) was to give synonyms to what
> >> is already installed, or some of them were truly installing from the
> >> build location when I gave the "something along this line" example.
> >
> > Yes, the top-level Makefile seems to have a special branch for
> > BUILT_INS, in which, we will create symlink for those builtin in
> > libexecdr if NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS is defined.
>
> Did you mean pieces like this?
>
> for p in $(filter $(install_bindir_programs),$(BUILT_INS)); do \
> $(RM) "$$bindir/$$p" && \
> test -n "$(INSTALL_SYMLINKS)" && \
> ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" || \
> { test -z "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
> ln "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
> cp "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" || exit; } \
> done && \Yes, I meant this piece.
> The symlinks happen ONLY when INSTALL_SYMLINKS is asked for.
Not what I understand from that code. When `INSTALL_SYMLINKS` is not asked, the shell will jump to this block:
{ test -z "$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)" && \
ln "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
cp "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" || exit; } \When NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS is asked, the shell will jump to last 2 clauses:
ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \ cp "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" || exit; } \
shell try to "ln -s" first, when it failed to symlink, cp will be used.
In fact, this's what we used for packaging in distro, we often ask for:
NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS
> Not all filesystems support symbolic links,
This is correct, but most sane package manager will do the right thing.
> hardlinks never suffer from > dangling link problem, and often they are cheaper.
Part of the reason we don't ask for INSTALL_SYMLINKS, because with INSTALL_SYMLINKS, symlink will be make from $(libexecdir)/git to $(bindir)/git.
But, NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS will only symlink inside $(libexecdir), e.g:
$ ls -al $(/usr/bin/git --exec-path )/git -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3193704 2020-08-12 21:37 /usr/libexec/git-core/git $ ls -al $(/usr/bin/git --exec-path )/git-ls-files lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2020-08-12 21:37 /usr/libexec/git-core/git-ls-files -> git
And those symlinks are packaged and managed by package manager, so, no, no dangling problem.
-- Danh