On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 11 February 2015 at 00:28, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> I don't see problems to have 'make install-tools' to create symlink
> for svn-bench to maintain compatibility with 1.8.
>
> And of course svn-bench should be renamed to svnbench.
>
Looks like we have a consensus. I'll do the changes Thursday morning.
Thanks everyone how participated!
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2015-02-11 11:06:47 CET