Hello! Not an answer to the question, but it might be interesting nevertheless.
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:48:11PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Kartik K. Agaram wrote: > > Does POSIX require that coreutils commands use only physical path rather > > than pwd to resolve relative paths? When pwd contains symlinks and we try > > to operate upon relative paths that take us outside the symlink, the > > effect is often jarring and non-intuitive. > > Symlinks violate some principles of least surprise. Therefore it is > no surprise that it is impossible to make all uses of symlinks > unsurprising. ... at least when using the commonly used implementation / interpretation of `..'. <http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.html>, <http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.pdf>, <http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.ps> describes another one: ``Lexical File Names in Plan 9 --- or --- Getting Dot-Dot Right by Rob Pike''. Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
