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
Quoted 1 line · Jeff Garzik
Please stop filling up my
/usr/local/bin:)
why?
Quoted 3 lines
Just have one 'git' script, which looks in
/usr/local/libexec/gitfor further scripts and backends programs like write-tree and diff-cache.
how is that really any better?
Quoted 3 lines
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.
Quoted 9 lines · Chris Wedgwood
Quoted 1 line · Jeff Garzik
Please stop filling up my
/usr/local/bin:)why?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Just have one 'git' script, which looks in
/usr/local/libexec/gitfor 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
Quoted 1 line · Jeff Garzik
* flat namespaces grow cumbersome
agreed
Quoted 2 lines
* 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
[Added David Wheeler to the CC given his (admirable) pushes for wide standards compliance.]
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
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
Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 09:58:26PM CEST, I got a letter where Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> told me that...
Quoted 4 lines
Please stop filling up my
/usr/local/bin:)Just have one 'git' script, which looks in
/usr/local/libexec/gitfor 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. :-)
Quoted 2 lines
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.
Signature · 3 lines
Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor