Re: [Bug-stow] Directories must not be symbolic

[Adam Spiers]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 07:36:09PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Adam Spiers <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 08:48:15PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> >> IMHO, Stow must only symlink files, and create real directories. This
> >> would ensure a simple and determinist behavior, and remove the need for
> >> placeholders. What do you think?
> >
> > That's precisely why I added the --no-folding option:
> >
> >   
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/stow/manual/html_node/Installing-Packages.html#tree%20folding
> >   
> > https://github.com/aspiers/stow/commit/ed12c787df985896c8ba1c188af45b9fb637b017
> >
> > ;-)  So your find pipeline is unnecessary.
> 
> Great! I tested it and indeed it removes the need for the placeholders.

Good :-)

> > However personally I don't use --no-folding, because I want more
> > fine-grained control over which directories are folded, and which
> > aren't.  For that I use an ugly hack, which is a separate repo I call
> > "ANTIFOLD", which contains empty hidden .no-stow-folding files in
> > directories where I don't want folding.  I stow that repo to $HOME
> > alongside the other ones, and the fact that there are two repos
> > stowing to the same path causes Stow to ensure that that directory is
> > unfolded (i.e. a real directory).
> >
> > And yes, it's on the TODO list to improve this:
> >
> >   https://github.com/aspiers/stow/blob/master/TODO
> 
> Do people use symlinks to directory a lot? Because of the flooding issue
> I mentioned, I'd imagine --no-folding to be the default behavior, and
> having a --folding or more explicit --symlink-dir option to change it.

I think folding has been the default behaviour for at least 15 years,
whereas I added only --no-folding 4 years ago, so I expect that the
vast majority of users are used to folding.  As a result I'm very
reluctant to change the default behaviour.