On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I do not know (and I am not quite sure if I want to know) how
serious your "potential" problems would be, and I do not doubt you
know OS X quirks much better than I do and do not intend to argue
there aren't such problems. I am just curious how "us
"Kyle J. McKay" writes:
> Now, can you do that easily in a Makefile? ;)
Or is it worth doing it?
I do not mind a full symbolic link as long as it points at the
correct place (Sebastian's version did not under DESTDIR which was
the only issue I had against it), but is there a good reason why we
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Jeff King wrote:
>> endif
>> $(RM)·"$$execdir/$$p"·&&·\
>>
>> test·-z·"$(NO_INSTALL_HARDLINKS)$(NO_CROSS_DIRECTORY_HARDLINKS)"·&&·\
>> ln·"$$bindir/$$p"·"$$execdir/$$p"·2>/dev/null·||·\
>> +ln·-s·"../$$p"·"$$execdir/$$p"·2>/dev/
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 09:29:04PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
> > We would still want an equivalent to 2/2 to set up a relative symlink
> > for $(ALL_PROGRAMS), though, right?
>
> Probably. But I'm not sure how to calculate the relative path
> correctly so that it'll work with all possible
On Feb 5, 2015, at 11:51, Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:26:08PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
It is not even correct, is it?
When DESTDIR is set to allow you to install into a temporary place
only so that you can "tar" up the resulting filesystem tree, bindir
points at the lo
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:26:08PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
>
>> > It is not even correct, is it?
>> >
>> > When DESTDIR is set to allow you to install into a temporary place
>> > only so that you can "tar" up the resulting filesystem tr
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:26:08PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
> > It is not even correct, is it?
> >
> > When DESTDIR is set to allow you to install into a temporary place
> > only so that you can "tar" up the resulting filesystem tree, bindir
> > points at the location we need to "cp" the
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> This is wrong.
>>
>> Currently with symlinks you will get installed into bindir something
>> like this:
>>
>> git
>> git-tag -> git
>> git-show -> git
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> With your change you would have
>>
>> git
>> git-tag -> /usr/l
"Kyle J. McKay" writes:
>> -ln -s "git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
>> +ln -s "$$bindir/git$X" "$$bindir/$$p" 2>/dev/null || \
>
> This is wrong.
>
> Currently with symlinks you will get installed into bindir something
> like this:
>
> git
> git-tag -> git
> git-show -
On Feb 5, 2015, at 07:51, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
For consistency, we should use the same source for symbolic links as
for
hard links and copies.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth
---
Makefile | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
ind
For consistency, we should use the same source for symbolic links as for
hard links and copies.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth
---
Makefile | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index c44eb3a..21f23cb 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefil
11 matches
Mail list logo
