On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 01:39:39PM +1000, Seth McDonald wrote:
This was just some extra future-proofing [...]
i'm all for choosing designs that lend themselves to extension into
plausible directions.
mkdir_p() becoming security-sensitive (due to isync becoming setuid)
just isn't such a direction.
i'm also against actually implementing low-level features that currently
have no use. i don't want that dead code. also, experience shows that
actually appearing use cases usually require (sometimes major)
adjustments to the speculatively added code.
for the time being, i don't see a need to adjust the utility functions.
afaict, fixing the neutralization of the mailbox creation can be done at
a higher level with less code and more clarity.
_______________________________________________
isync-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
