stow/TODO

* Next release should be under GPL v3
* Get permission for next documentation release to be under FDL 1.3
* Import a debian/ tree from an older package and update it.
* Import a .spec file from somewhere and update it.
* Distinguish between .stow and (undocumented) .nonstow
** .stow is for marking stow directories - avoids altering them
   but also allows --override to work
** .nonstow should be only for protecting non-stow directories against modification by stow
   but currently allows modification via --override.
** Documentation needs to be clear on this.
* Prevent folding of directories which contain ignored files
* 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
* get account on fencepost.gnu.org (email accounts@gnu.org) 
  set up copyright papers? 
  'assign.future' and 'request-assign.future.manual'

* Figure out what needs the files '.nonstow' and '.notstowed'. Can they be removed?

* Update http://directory.fsf.org/project/stow/

* Update savannah CVS

* Check that all email addresses are working: need an account on fenchpost for
  this bug-stow@gnu.org, help-stow@gnu.org

* Get some pre-testers: need to find appropriate mailing list?

* Announce release on info-gnu@gnu.org.

* Autodetect "foreign" stow directories

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'")?

Does Version 2 fix this? (Kal)
I think that because it never needs to create /usr/local/info,
it only needs to check the ownership of links that it _operates_ on,
not on all the elements of the path.

* emacs local variables
  Local Variables:
  mode: org
  End: