fao_ writes:
> Rather, I am asking your opinions on the general concept and how it
> has been implemented. [...] But anything about the general behavior of
> it that you think especially sucky would help, also.
One of my pet projects is a distribution that uses stow for
package management: http:
In fact, I was thinking of writing a GNU Stow drop in replacement in
Suckless-style C when I find some time (GNU Stow is written in Perl, I
believe).
I am always a bit confused when I hear about GNU stow. Does it provide
more feature than this:
ETC=$(cd "${0%/*}" && pwd)
find "$ETC" -name .g
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Matthew Parnell wrote:
> I do use GNU Stow myself; however, only as a tool to provide a nice
> wrapper to link my dotfiles from a git repo to where they ought to be.
Same here. I haven't found any less-silly solution to date. Dropping the
Perl dependency would be nice, but De
Hi fao_,
> what is suckless' general opinion of GNU Stow. [...] I am asking your
> opinions on the general concept and how it has been implemented.
> Specifically, the idea of installing under a 'package' directory, and
> symlinking from there to the proper install location.
As with many here, I
what makes you think the complexity of trying to replace symlinks with
something slightly less sucky is worth the gain?
is it all just about perceived cleanliness or is there also a
practical advantage?
tinycorelinux packages are "extreme"? why?
On 8/31/17, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 31 August
On 31 August 2017 at 09:33, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason symlinks are still being used is that unions on linux are
> an even bigger, unstable piece of shit. The tinycorelinux people tried
> them out for their package system and had to give up and use the
> "hack" instead.
See my oth
> Symlinks have always been a hack due to Unix' lack of a proper
> namespaces approach. Plan 9 later fixed this by introducting a proper
> namespaces approach[1] - but even today unices (incl. Linux) have
> almost ignored the learnings of Plan 9 with some exceptions.
Yes, they are a hack, but linu
On 2017-08-30 9:05 am, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Symlinks have always been a hack due to Unix' lack of a proper
namespaces approach. Plan 9 later fixed this by introducting a proper
namespaces approach[1] - but even today unices (incl. Linux) have
almos
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Symlinks have always been a hack due to Unix' lack of a proper
> namespaces approach. Plan 9 later fixed this by introducting a proper
> namespaces approach[1] - but even today unices (incl. Linux) have
> almost ignored the learnings of Plan 9 with some
Hi there,
On 30 August 2017 at 01:39, fao_ wrote:
> Rather, I am asking your opinions on the general concept and
> how it has been implemented. Specifically, the idea of installing
> under a 'package' directory, and symlinking from there to the
> proper install location. But anything about the ge
Basically what the title asks: what is suckless' general opinion
of GNU Stow. To clarify: I am not asking about the language or
tools that make up GNU stow (It is obviously not Suckless).
Rather, I am asking your opinions on the general concept and
how it has been implemented. Specifically, the i
11 matches
Mail list logo
