On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Dieter Plaetinck <die...@plaetinck.be> wrote:
> 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
Ah, I see! Well, in an ideal world, I would have time to ensure that
every single file in my home directory is perfectly managed as a stow
package :-) But in practice is there anyone who really achieves that?
There are many cases where it just isn't worth the effort. Perhaps
~/local was a bad example, because that path is suggestive of a
typical GNU-like installation sequence:
in which case I agree it's not much more effort to do:
# now install via stow
but there are plenty of other examples where it is not pragmatic to
spend the time ensuring every single file is controlled by stow, e.g.
make install # this puts some files in ~/doc
# days/weeks/months later:
Without a ~/doc/.no-stow-folding file present, suddenly you have
accidentally put your shopping list inside a third party piece of
software :-) And it's not worth having a stow package for a shopping
list which will probably be deleted tomorrow anyway.
Another approach would be to add an option to stow that disables tree
folding entirely; it shouldn't be hard to do that. But personally I
find tree folding useful as long as it's managed well.
vcs-home mailing list