threads / discuss / 269
Subject: Humble request of 'git' developers
Please stop filling up my /usr/local/bin :)
Just have one 'git' script, which looks in /usr/local/libexec/git for further scripts and backends programs like write-tree and diff-cache.
Also, please don't assume that "." is in PATH. I think there is at least one invocation of commit-id with that assumption, in git-pasky-0.6.3.
Jeff
Re: Humble request of 'git' developers
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 03:58:26PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Please stop filling up my /usr/local/bin :)
why?
> Just have one 'git' script, which looks in /usr/local/libexec/git > for further scripts and backends programs like write-tree and > diff-cache.
how is that really any better?
> Also, please don't assume that "." is in PATH. I think there is at > least one invocation of commit-id with that assumption, in > git-pasky-0.6.3.
That I'll buy. I don't know of anyone who places "." in PATH.
Re: Humble request of 'git' developers
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 03:58:26PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > >>Please stop filling up my /usr/local/bin :) > > > why? > > >>Just have one 'git' script, which looks in /usr/local/libexec/git >>for further scripts and backends programs like write-tree and >>diff-cache. > > > how is that really any better?
Because
* flat namespaces grow cumbersome
* if everybody uses the 'git' command, which does all the internal execution, then it's just namespace pollution.
* using a multi-level namespace allows you to create commands like "rm" and "mv" by simply dropping that stuff into /usr/libexec/git, without having to worry about conflicting with rm(1) and mv(1).
Jeff
Re: Humble request of 'git' developers
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 04:09:09PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> * flat namespaces grow cumbersome
agreed
> * if everybody uses the 'git' command, which does all the internal > execution, then it's just namespace pollution.
sure, but not everyone body is
i agree everybody *should* and then it can go into <prefix>/libexec or similar
Re: Humble request of 'git' developers
[Added David Wheeler to the CC given his (admirable) pushes for wide standards compliance.]
>>>Just have one 'git' script, which looks in /usr/local/libexec/git > [or] /usr/libexec/git
The FHS <http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html> looks like it recommends a /usr/lib/git directory:
/usr/lib : Libraries for programming and packages
Purpose
/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries that
are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell scripts. Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib. If an
application uses a subdirectory, all architecture-dependent data
exclusively used by the application must be placed within that
subdirectory.My Debian sarge system has one libexec-like directory, but it follows the FHS:
$ locate '/usr*libexec*' /usr/lib/php4/libexec
-Sanjoy
Petr BaudisRe: Humble request of 'git' developers
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 09:58:26PM CEST, I got a letter where Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> told me that...
> Please stop filling up my /usr/local/bin :) > > Just have one 'git' script, which looks in /usr/local/libexec/git for > further scripts and backends programs like write-tree and diff-cache.
Ad core git, yes, one of the reasons why I decided for the Cogito rename was to free the "git namesace" for the git programs. :-)
> Also, please don't assume that "." is in PATH. I think there is at > least one invocation of commit-id with that assumption, in git-pasky-0.6.3.
Yes, sorry, fixed and pushed out.
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor