# Re: \[ANNOUNCE\] GIT 0.99.9g - From: Andreas Ericsson \ - Date: 2016-06-15 22:42:11 - List: git - Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2016/06/7274265 - Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2005/11/780692/t.md ```text H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> >>> Oh, and we will not be moving things out of /usr/bin/ during 1.0 >>> timeframe. >> >> >> >> :( bummer. I do like the elegance of having /usr/bin/git executing stuff out of /usr/libexec/git. >> >> /usr/libexec/git also makes it IMO cleaner when integrating git plugins from third parties (rpm -Uvh git-newfeature), because you don't have to worry about the /usr/bin namespace. >> > > It's nice in concept, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this is a bad idea: > > - "man" doesn't handle it. It would be another thing if "man" could be taught to understand commands like "man cvs checkout" or "man git fetch". > This is moot. man-pages can still be named git-fetch. > - There is no general way to teach shells etc about it, for tab completion etc. > Add the lib directory to the path (for git-) or have it auto-evaluate the result of a git command-listing. > - Makes it harder (but not impossible) to run git from a build directory without installing it first. > Provided adding --lib=. is considered difficult, yes. Btw, this problem still applies as some of the programs run other programs that are expected to be in the path. I've just posted a patch (used my submit-patch script, which was stupid since I should have posted it here) that doesn't have any of these problems. > In comparison, the issue of clutter in /usr/bin is actually a pretty small issue, especially with htree. Most vendors have gone back to putting everything into /usr/bin since all variants that involve splitting it up seem to be more of a loss than a gain. > Fair enough. With the patch I've just sent (C implementation of the 'git' program) this option is certainly available. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 ```