François Pinard writes:
> Just a comment, here. We used `mkdir -p' all along in this thread,
... although it started with rmdir -p ...
> but I guess it might be better to think `install -d' rather than
> `mkdir -p'.
Is there a difference?
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg
Akim Demaille writes:
> I agree that `mkdir -p' belong to the spirit of `missing', but I
> certainly have no problems with `mkinstalldirs',
How does that fit together? Would `missing mkdir -p' invoke
`mkinstalldirs'? That would be fine with me, because then `mkinstalldirs'
is useful in it's own
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit:
> | Each distribution should give people all what is needed for maintenance,
> | or at least, good pointers to re-establish a full context of maintenance.
> | Installers, or even users, should not be considered as lesser people.
> That's precisely my poin
Hi François !
| > While we're at it, don't you think we should build a single file
| > `STUFF' which contains NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS, THANKS, TODO,
| > ABOUT-NLS, ChangeLog, INSTALL, README etc.? Let's face it: there is
| > plenty of useless files in there, nobody cares!
|
| Somebody cares! D
> > Oh, each supplementary file we distribute is a bit of a burden to
> > the maintainer (Auto- tools could help here :-), but more
> > importantly, one more bit of pollution each time the maintainer does
> > `ls' in his/her work files.
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrit:
> Seriously, there
> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> While we're at it, don't you think we should build a single file
>> `STUFF' which contains NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS, THANKS, TODO,
>> ABOUT-NLS, ChangeLog, INSTALL, README etc.? Let's face it: there
>> is plenty of useless files in ther
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> >> Akim
> > François
>
> >> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities and
> >> one big.
> While we're at it, don't you think we should build a single file
> `STUFF' which contains NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS, THANKS, TODO,
> ABOUT-NLS, C
>> Akim
> François
>> Honestly, I see no difference between plenty of small utilities and
>> one big.
> Oh, each supplementary file we distribute is a bit of a burden to
> the maintainer (Auto- tools could help here :-), but more
> importantly, one more bit of pollution each tim
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David" == Masterson, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Would those complaints be really due to "too many files"
David> (ie. size issue) or "too many files with questionable purpose"?
Tom> Actually I think it is not size (in byte
