Honestly, it seems like the majority is to not have this, so I'm happy to
drop it if that's the consensus. I just keep running into the usual
situation where I don't want dangling links.
For the other items:
if the catalog *does* fail on account of the link's target not being
> managed soon enoug
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 1:50:08 PM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>
> Well, there's my concrete example of where dangling symlinks are used in
> the wild
>
> Ok, back to autorequires. I'm still not convinced that it's beneficial to
> not have it in place.
>
I am unlikely to persuade you
Well, there's my concrete example of where dangling symlinks are used in
the wild
Ok, back to autorequires. I'm still not convinced that it's beneficial to
not have it in place.
I suppose that I could do some hack-fu like I did with 'group' so that
people that want it could patch it into plac
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 7:21:55 AM UTC-8, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>
> HmmOk, how about this:
>
> 1) Dangling symlinks are allowed
> 2) Warnings on dangling symlinks are the default (because you *probably*
> don't want them)
> 3) Setting :force => true, disables the warning message (in theory
HmmOk, how about this:
1) Dangling symlinks are allowed
2) Warnings on dangling symlinks are the default (because you *probably*
don't want them)
3) Setting :force => true, disables the warning message (in theory, you
would only do this after seeing the message)
3a) For a less destructive meth
On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:51:03 PM UTC-6, Trevor Vaughan wrote:
>
> Ok, you certainly have a working counter example, but I feel that it
> *should* actually fail and that this is a bug.
>
>
[...]
> I would like to propose that symlinks should naturally (i.e. autorequire*)
> come *a
