On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:00:52 +0100
Adam Spiers <vcs-h...@adamspiers.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Dieter Plaetinck
> <die...@plaetinck.be> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:34:16 +0100
> > Adam Spiers <vcs-h...@adamspiers.org> wrote:
> >> However I might very well want to manually place other files inside
> >> ~/local which have nothing to do with stow, let alone the 'foo'
> >> stow package.  It might make sense to have ~/local/lib/perl/Acme/
> >> be a symlink to $STOW_DIR/foo/local/lib/perl/Acme/, but symlinks
> >> higher up the tree would be undesirable.  This is easily overcome
> >> by creating a special stow package (which I call 'ANTIFOLD')
> >
> > this seems a bit messy though. Once you go the way of having a tool
> > automagically manage all your symlinks, why not just have the
> > discipline to put all your files in appropriate packages? so that
> > you never _need_ to create "antifold" packages? what you're doing
> > seems a bit like running into the opposite direction.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean; please could you elaborate?
> As far as I'm aware, all my files are nicely separated into
> appropriate packages, but that doesn't solve the problem.


You wrote "However I might very well want to manually place other files
inside ~/local which have nothing to do with stow".

Now you wrote "As far as I'm aware, all my files are nicely separated
into appropriate packages".

That confuses me.  I was responding to your approach in which you describe how 
you
make stow unfold by creating a dummy 'antifold' package which would allow you 
store
files not managed by stow in your ~/local

Dieter
_______________________________________________
vcs-home mailing list
vcs-home@lists.madduck.net
http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home

Reply via email to