Re: dh_movefiles, tar vs. mv
Colin Watson <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
I never asked how to get dh_install to move files. I asked what the
reasons are why neither dh_install nor dh_movefiles use it.
And it seems to me that the summary of the answers is:
It is unwanted in most cases, in particular because of idempotency. But
in cases where idempotency is less important than other things - time
and disk space savings - there is no technical reason not to use it in
package building. Using hard links may be an alternative, but not
without major changes to the code.
I have not yet decided whether I'm going to prepare a patch for
dh_install, for an optional "--move" behavior, or just use it in a
handcrafted way in my packaging script.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich