[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/6] realpath cleanups

From: Pádraig Brady
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] realpath cleanups
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:04:53 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0

On 03/14/2012 08:38 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> As promised, here's my cleaned up series for

This is very thorough.
I can't find any logic issues at all.

> I'm not sure whether to squash 2 and 3 into one patch.

separate is fine

> I'm not sure whether we want patch 6/6, so I documented the current
> behavior in 5/6; if we want both, then it's best to squash the two
> together (that is, effectively get rid of 5/6).

I'm still pondering this.
I was thinking that --relative-base was a point across
which you didn't want any relativity happening.

point1_rel() {
  realpath --relative-base=/mnt/point1/ --relative-to=. "$1"

But your argument reproduced in the following paragraph is valid too:

Consider: 'realpath --relative-base=$dir --relative-to=. $file'
It seems reasonable to get a relative name to $file if file is under
$dir, without regards to where '.' lives, but prior to this patch,
if '.' is a parent of $dir, the output was absolute.

I err'd on the side of compatibility with existing tools.

I'll think some more about it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]