From: Johannes Schindelin Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:04:23 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add option USE_INPLACE to Makefile Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vpsp19eg7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Hi, On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Now, *I* know what I have to put into config.mak, but I would hate the > > project if I was new to it, tried to play around with it, and nothing > > would work in spite of being compiled with just one warning, thank you. > > Hmph. That certainly sounds like what I might do. Especially > the part "play around before installing", so I am *very* > sympathetic. > > OTOH, I do not particularly want to advertise/encourage in-place > use. Once you built today's git ;-), wouldn't you cd somewhere > else and use it for your real work? That would mean you have > one location on your PATH that you keep the latest git build > and I am not sure why being able to run in-place is such a big > deal. Is it because $HOME is under a tight quota? Okay. So it would be better to provide a short snippet in INSTALL which can be copied into config.mak? > > Just a safety measure for the price of two lines. When I check out a new > > project, I do "make", play around with it, and then do "make install". If > > I had to set "export USE_INPLACE=1", "make install" should barf, because > > the compiled programs are not meant to be used anywhere else. > > OK. That's sensible. Well, the patch was untested, and wrong (template_dir was bogus). But I agree that it might be a better idea to deprecate that behaviour. I *will* learn to "make install" after "make", and not spend hours just to find that ./git called the old installed binaries. Ciao, Dscho