[Top][All Lists]

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

[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #57587] Should symlinks follow physical struct

From: John W. Eaton
Subject: [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #57587] Should symlinks follow physical structure or logical structure?
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:39:50 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #57587 (project octave):

So at least in --traditional mode, I assume we would want to use physical

If we did allow following symbolic link names as an option, would there be a
problem for reliability of scripts?  Is that a problem for shells that have
this feature?

I think there may be other issues for Octave, like what is supposed to go in
the load-path?  The canonical physical name of the file or or the symbolic
link?  Should that depend on the setting for following symbolic links?

Since Octave borrows from readline and bash, I think we may have had some code
to track symbolic links in the past?

In any case, simply using the canonical physical directory name is far


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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