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
104fx_copy can get confusing #514
Comments
So are you saying you want it to overwrite any existing browser at that path? I could just throw in an |
Seriously. How can I miss this. Yeah, exactly what I mean. Thanks for the tip. |
Can you enclose
So it absolutely avoids overwriting an unrelated directory, expecting it would produce |
classilla
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 18, 2018
OK. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
When I use the script more than once and point at the same location everytime, e.g
/users/myname/TenFourFox.app
the first application bundle will be stuffed with the second one at/users/myname/TenFourFox.app/TenFourFox.app
, since this is the normal behaviour of unix directories.Can something like temporarily staging a copy of the .app on top of the tree to relink libraries then create an archive with
tar -cf
instead to get an overwrite behaviour be acceptable? I think it would avoid somewhat misleading cases that involve the above.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: