Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> I don't use symlinks on my maintained code either, but I have worked
> a long time on a thirdy part software which used symlinks in the
> source tree, and I confess it was a nightmare. To workaround the
> problem we were uncompressing the tarball with "h" parameter
> (dereference symlinks), and importing in the tree. Unfortunately,
> each time we had to modify a file which had a symlink pointing to
> it, we had to filter the patch before mailing to the maintainer,
> since it contained changes in both versions (symlink and real
> file). We could have used some hack in the makefile or another
> script, as barry mentioned, but we noticed that this would introduce
> other inconveniences as well (I remember that keeping track of
> symlink changes was one of them). Also, the maintainer itself wasn't
> using CVS just because of that trouble (he could give up on
> symlinks, but didn't want to, and implemented his own way to
> maintain the code).
Ouch. That sounded really nasty.
> One of the features which catched my attention the first time I met
> subversion was the purpose to include symlink support in the
> future.
I joined in when it was still claimed that symlink support was already
implemented :-) You are definitely not alone in this.
> I hope we aren't giving up on that now.
I don't think people are doing that. It's just that symlinks are a
platform specific thing - and nasty to implement cleanly without
polluting lots of code. People would want the ultimate solution, which
would be clean, powerful and elegant. So let's just hope we can get
something in the near future :-)
-- Naked
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 18 01:41:06 2002