On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 11:32 -0800, Oliver Kurth wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 20:25 +0100, GOMBAS Gabor wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:54:27PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > > > > Correct. So, why not use mv? > > > > Add a new "--move" flag to dh_installfiles, come up with some exact > > numbers showing the build time/disk usage savings for your favorite Big > > Package (hard numbers usually very helpful for promoting new features), > > and send the numbers together with the patch to the debhelper maintainer. > > > > Someone already mentioned that a complex package might want to install > > the same file to multiple different locations, so making this the > > default is probably not feasible. > > How about hard linking with ln instead? You would have the best of both > approaches: it is fast, and still possible to have the same file in > multiple packages. I believe Python distutils (like autoconf/automake for Python) uses this approach for its various build/dist targets, and there don't seem to have been any problems/complaints. It also cuts down on hard drive space requirements. However, it probably shouldn't be default. A hard link would be a pretty incompatible change if someone modifies the file after it's been dh_installed (I don't have any concrete examples, but I suspect something does it, if only because 13000 packages guarantees every nasty hack appears at least once :). -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part