adding [minimal] symlink support

[Neal Becker]

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

> On 2006-07-12 18:05, Mathieu Clabaut <mathieu.clabaut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 7/12/06, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
>>> I'm usually the one who doesn't care about symlinks at all,
>>> since I believe it's the job of the installer to take care of
>>> them and not of the source / revision-management system.
>>
>> Just as a side note, we perhaps should keep in mind that
>> revision-management system are not use only for sources...
>> As such their are context where the notion of "installer" has
>> no meaning (I think about documentation, management of
>> configuration files, or whatever one can imagine which needs
>> management of revisions,...).
> 
> I know revision-management is not necessarily "source code
> revision-management", but I am not sure I have seen many cases
> where non-source files are kept in a revision-management system
> successfully *and* leverage the rev-management features for a
> good thing.
> 
> Most of the time, when people talk about revision management of
> binary or documentation files, they seem to refer to commits of
> binary-only, proprietary, closed formats like Mircosoft Word,
> in an otherwise plain repository.
> 
> Perhaps it's just me being stupid though, so don't let this be
> considered an argument against symlink-support in Mercurial :)
> 
> Being grateful for all the work Mercurial is saving me already...
> 
> Regards,
> Giorgos

I think you might find this interesting:
http://wiki.conary.com/wiki/Conary