Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300:
> On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100:
> >> Con:
> >> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it
> >> with its current name
> >> Neutral:
> >> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc)
> > For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in:
> > if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \
> > ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT) $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \
> > fi
> > So you could do something similar for this rename.
> I think that distro packagers who made unofficially released tool part
> of they package could do this, but we should not add a symlink in
> Subversion core.
In 1.8, 'make install-tools' installs svn-bench. In 1.9, 'make install'
will install svnbench. If 1.9 'make install-tools' doesn't create
svn-bench as a symlink to svnbench, then we'll have broken compatibility
for users of that makefile target. Therefore 'make install-tools'
should create the symlink. The symlink won't be part of the core 'make
install'. Makes sense?
That's exactly what we do for svnmucc — the Makefile.in code I quoted is
run by the 'install-tools' target, which used to install svnmucc into
Received on 2015-02-10 22:31:27 CET