Andy Tai wrote:
On 4/12/06, Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andy Tai wrote:
On 4/12/06, Pedro Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apparently the extra dot in front of ./static is not an acceptable
character/path for tla.
This is a weakness in the current code and shall be fixed. (added to
the to do list...)
Sigh. It's a security feature. Note that it is there deliberately
(see the
call to `is_non_upwards_relative_path'). I strongly recommend that you
NOT CHANGE THAT BEHAVIOR.
OK, once Tom has spoken, that's it. I will follow Tom's suggestion
here. Pedro, please just use the path without the dot in front.
That's why I enjoy being a member of this list. I always learn something
new. Thanks.
( I will check the code for is_non_upward_relative_path ).
It would be a piss-poor feature of a revision control system if, just
checking
out a tree in the usual way without carefully scrutinizing the config file
first, stuff could be installed where you don't expect
So question one is, is a double dot (parent directory) an illegal path
for "tla build-config" ?
Question two is, why ./lfs/. does not work but ./lfs does work?
OK, this is a case that is nice to be handled correctly as well. (a
low-priority to do)
That's generous of you. I wouldn't bother. Why add code (i.e.,
additional
sources of error, additional maintenance burden) just to give users the
option of typing a gratuitous no-op?
-t
As suggested by Tom as well.
I will still go ahead and implement the check-config suggestion by
Pedro, which is useful to have.
--
Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Tom, Andy,
--
Pedro Perez
_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
