Re: dh_movefiles, tar vs. mv
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 08:59:00PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Colin Watson <email@example.com> schrieb:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:54:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Christoph Berg <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb:
> >> > Re: Daniel Burrows in <[🔎] email@example.com>
> >> >> I'd imagine that it doesn't use mv for the same reason "install" doesn't;
> >> >> ie, its purpose is to COPY files, not MOVE them.
> >> >
> >> > As I understood it, the question was about moving stuff from
> >> > debian/tmp to debian/package. The stuff in debian/tmp should get
> >> > removed by the clean target anyway, so it doesn't hurt to move instead
> >> > of copying it.
> >> Indeed. Especially when people tell me that dh_install is the successor
> >> of dh_movefiles, which even has move in its name...
> > debhelper (4.0.0) unstable; urgency=low
> > * dh_movefiles has long been a sore point in debhelper. Inherited
> > from debstd, its interface and implementation suck, and I have maintained
> > it while never really deigning to use it. Now there is a remplacment:
> > dh_install, which ...
> > - copies files, doesn't move them. Closes: #75360, #82649
> What do you want to say with this? Do you want to tell me that using mv
> is bad? If yes, why? It's not in the bug reports.
My point is that half the reason why dh_install was introduced instead
of dh_movefiles is to copy files, not move them, and it seems odd that
now there's a thread asking how to get dh_install to move files. If you
want to move files, don't use dh_install.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]