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

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 13, 2007, 21:46 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711132145400.4362@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <200711132232.11730.johannes.sixt@telecom.at>

Hi,

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Johannes Sixt wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> 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.

Ciao, Dscho