On 11 February 2015 at 00:28, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 14:48:04 +0300: >> On 10 February 2015 at 14:07, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: >> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 18:46:51 +0100: >> >> Con: >> >> - some people have seen the tool and may have used it >> >> with its current name >> >> >> >> Neutral: >> >> * renames have happened in the past (e.g. mucc -> svnmucc) >> > >> > For svnmucc, we add a symlink from the old location in Makefile.in: >> > >> > if test "$(DESTDIR)$(bindir)" != "$(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)"; then \ >> > ln -sf $(bindir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT) >> > $(DESTDIR)$(toolsdir)/svnmucc$(EXEEXT); \ >> > fi >> > >> > So you could do something similar for this rename. >> I think that distro packagers who made unofficially released tool part >> of they package could do this, but we should not add a symlink in >> Subversion core. > > In 1.8, 'make install-tools' installs svn-bench. In 1.9, 'make install' > will install svnbench. If 1.9 'make install-tools' doesn't create > svn-bench as a symlink to svnbench, then we'll have broken compatibility > for users of that makefile target. Therefore 'make install-tools' > should create the symlink. The symlink won't be part of the core 'make > install'. Makes sense? > I don't see problems to have 'make install-tools' to create symlink for svn-bench to maintain compatibility with 1.8.
And of course svn-bench should be renamed to svnbench. -- Ivan Zhakov
