[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bitkeeper-users
Subject:    Re: [Bitkeeper-users] Problem I noticed
From:       "Andrew Walrond" <andrew () walrond ! org>
Date:       2003-08-29 16:00:17
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Wayne,

> Yes that makes sense.  As you implied that you already understand, you
> can make links to /opt/bitkeeper directly and those links will work.
> That is how bitkeeper is intended to be installed.  It allows the
> other files that come with bitkeeper to be put in one place without
> configuration.  As you say we don't check for and handle links to links.
> That is not the normal installation and would be extra work for every
> call of 'bk'.
>

Agreed, but to argue the case just a little...

I don't understand your 'extra work for every call' argument; Surely it's
not significant (in the context of typing a bk command and the time taken by
a typical bk command, whats an extra millisecond?)

Most people would expect a symlink to a symlink to work just fine. I did and
was suprised when it didn't.

I have a custom linux distro which installs all packages to their own
directory tree, then symlinks anything it finds in the packages bin dir to
the real bin dir. Bitkeeper is the only package which doesn't work, unless I
put all the bitkeeper files in the bin dir, then I get a load of unwanted
symlinks in my real bin dir. So I had to special case bitkeeper. And I hate
special cases :)

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Bitkeeper-users mailing list
Bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com
http://bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the above URL, follow instruction at the bottom of the web page.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]