>I made myself unclear earlier. I have been submitting a patch for this >problem for some time now, but forgot to include it in my renewed request >for consideration. > >This absolutely a failure of functionality, and not a "feature" >admissable to control by (yet another) command line option. The program >already has a command line option which says to follow symlinks, and >therefore implies that it does not follow symlinks when that option is >not specified. This is true for regular files. However, it is not true >for directories.
It is not wise to change the default behaviour of an application - with out a very good reason. It is likely to cause more problems for existing users than it "solves". Ever since the beginning of mkisofs, symlinks used as pathspecs have been resolved (or followed), but symlinks found lower down a directory structure are not resolved, unless the the -follow option is used. There are perfectly good reasons to treat the the two cases differently, so I can't see having two options to choose is a problem. James Pearson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
