Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:08:45 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-etc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.include.dist Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970605030604.3289A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <199706042258.PAA01401@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * Do we really need them as directories? > > I guess so, unless we mandate the source dist. You know where the > symlinks are pointing at, right? What bad happen in keeping the same scheme for release and for source distribution and avoid such special cases? I see some troubles happens if somebody will try to extract source distribution over release (symlinks which overwrites directories) > > * In any case some deeper level > * directories not listed here, so I don't understand, how it is possible for > * release. Why just not make symlinks _always_? > > Well, here on a release system (2.1.5 actually): What about deeper level directories I ask? > At any rate, I suggest you back out the change and ask Jordan for > review. This is clearly his region as it concerns the release and not > only "make world". Ok. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970605030604.3289A-100000>