Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

allow whitebox executable to be symlinked #348

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mholling
Copy link

This minor patch causes a fully-resolved path for the whitebox executable to be used when locating the plugins folder. This allows the executable to be symlinked from another location.

I maintain the Whitebox Tools package for MacPorts (a macOS packaging system). As is usual for unix-style packaging systems, MacPorts installs all binaries in a standard location, /opt/local/bin. This causes a problem for the whitebox plugins, whose paths are hard-coded to be in a plugins subdirectory co-located with the main executable. It's not feasible to have such a folder located in a shared directory. Instead I symlink the whitebox_tools binary from another location where it and the plugins subdirectory reside. The submitted patch resolves such a symlink and allows the plugins directory to be successfully located.

@jblindsay jblindsay closed this in 7e8af99 Jun 7, 2023
@mholling
Copy link
Author

mholling commented Jun 8, 2023

OK. I don't understand why you invite contributions if you're not interested in them. I think an open-source/closed-development model would be a better fit for Whitebox Tools. It'd prevent people wasting their time on contributions which are ignored.

@jblindsay jblindsay reopened this Jun 8, 2023
@jblindsay
Copy link
Owner

Hello @mholling, thank you for this PR. I understand your frustration, but I'd ask that you maintain a respectful tone. Please understand that I am doing the best that I can with extremely limited resources and that Whitebox is an enormous project. You are absolutely correct that Whitebox is not like some other OS projects where there are a large number of contributors. Basically, it is a project that is driven by one person, me, and as it grows more complex, it becomes increasingly difficult for me reconcile PRs. For example, for this PR, it may be a small change, but I know from experience that anything involving how file paths are treated in Wb can cause subtle errors on other platforms. Has this change been tested on Linux and Windows? If I accept this PR and it gets released, will I get hundreds of Windows/Linux users complaining that things are now broken? I need to find the time to evaluate it, and frankly time is the one thing that I have the least of. I welcome you PR, but it may not get my attention in the time frame that you would hope for.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants