Hi, On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Lorenzo Campedelli wrote:
> I think you were referring to the small patch I sent. I actually gave up > with it, as I don't see how to make it in a clean way. > > Honestly I found your suggestion to try to have it less special-casing > vvfat a bit puzzling... vvfat is the only case in which there's any need > to override realpath() behaviour, so I tried to make it as clear as > possible. It makes the code ugly as hell, and it limits (unnecessarily) future extensions. But since you made quite clear that you do not want to change your patch, I will stop wasting my time. Ciao, Dscho
