[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dh_movefiles, tar vs. mv

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

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

Reply to: