2011-11-23 18:45:48 -05:00
|
|
|
* Prevent folding of directories which contain ignored files
|
2011-11-16 10:51:54 -05:00
|
|
|
* Honour .no-stow-folding and --no-folding
|
|
|
|
|
* Add semi-automatic conflict resolution
|
|
|
|
|
*** STOW_RESOLVE_CONFLICTS="non_stow_symlinks=t stow_symlinks=r"
|
|
|
|
|
*** Add documentation about conflict resolution
|
2011-11-16 09:04:03 -05:00
|
|
|
* get account on fencepost.gnu.org (email accounts@gnu.org)
|
|
|
|
|
set up copyright papers?
|
|
|
|
|
'assign.future' and 'request-assign.future.manual'
|
2001-12-24 09:57:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-21 17:08:52 -05:00
|
|
|
* Figure out what needs the files '.nonstow' and '.notstowed'. Can they be removed?
|
2001-12-24 09:57:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 09:04:03 -05:00
|
|
|
* Update http://directory.fsf.org/project/stow/
|
2001-12-24 09:57:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 09:59:58 -05:00
|
|
|
* Update savannah CVS
|
2001-12-24 09:57:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 09:04:03 -05:00
|
|
|
* Check that all email addresses are working: need an account on fenchpost for
|
|
|
|
|
this bug-stow@gnu.org, help-stow@gnu.org
|
2001-12-24 09:57:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 09:04:03 -05:00
|
|
|
* Get some pre-testers: need to find appropriate mailing list?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Announce release on info-gnu@gnu.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Autodetect "foreign" stow directories
|
2001-12-24 09:57:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From e-mail with meyering@na-net.ornl.gov:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> My /usr/local/info equivalent is a symlink to /share/info
|
|
|
|
|
> because I want installs on all systems to put info files in that
|
|
|
|
|
> directory. With that set-up, stow chokes on fact that
|
|
|
|
|
> /usr/local/info is a symlink.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[...] Stow is designed to be paranoid about modifying anything it
|
|
|
|
|
doesn't "own." If it finds a symlink in the target tree (e.g.,
|
|
|
|
|
/usr/local/info) which doesn't point into the stow tree, its
|
|
|
|
|
paranoid response is to leave it the hell alone. But I can see in
|
|
|
|
|
this case how traversing the link and populating the directory on
|
|
|
|
|
the far end would be OK. Question: is that a special
|
|
|
|
|
circumstance, or would it always be OK to populate the far end of
|
|
|
|
|
a symlink in the target tree (when the symlink points to a
|
|
|
|
|
directory in a context where a directory is needed)? And: if it's
|
|
|
|
|
a special circumstance requiring a command-line option, should the
|
|
|
|
|
option be a mere boolean (such as, "--traverse-target-links") or
|
|
|
|
|
should it be an enumeration of which links are OK to traverse
|
|
|
|
|
(such as, "--traversable='info man doc'")?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 09:04:03 -05:00
|
|
|
Does Version 2 fix this? (Kal)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that because it never needs to create /usr/local/info,
|
2011-11-16 09:59:58 -05:00
|
|
|
it only needs to check the ownership of links that it _operates_ on,
|
2011-11-16 09:04:03 -05:00
|
|
|
not on all the elements of the path.
|
2011-11-16 10:38:47 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* emacs local variables
|
|
|
|
|
Local Variables:
|
|
|
|
|
mode: org
|
|
|
|
|
End:
|
